1^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  *^ 


Presented  byYrr)^ .  Cj  ?r? .  ^  r-<c\  vr^  i2\  r>  ,~D  rD 
BX  8  .F6 

Fisher,  Daniel  Webster,  18 
-1913 . 

The  unification  of  the 
rhurrhes 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/unificationofchuOOfish 


The  Unification  of 
the  Churches 


The  Unification 
of  the  Churches 

A  Present  Day  Study 


y/  By 

DANIEL  W.  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Author  of^^A  Human  Life^'' 


New  York       Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming  H.  Revcll  Company 

London      and  Edinburgh 


Copyright,  1911,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


New  York  :  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  125  North  Wabash  Ave. 
Toronto:  25  Richmond  Street, W. 
London:  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh ;     100   Princes  Street 


CONTENTS 


PART  FIRST:— THE  PROBLEM 


I,  Present  Disunion ;  and  Why   ii 

II.  Present  Disunion;  the  Good  and 

THE  111,  of  it   24 

III.  Reunion,  and  the  Way  to  it   41 

PART  SECOND :— PROGRESS 

IV.  In  Christian  Countries   53 

V.  On  Mission  Fields   71 

VI.  An  Outeook    85 


FOREWORD 


HRISTIANITY  is  already  one ;  so  it  has 


always  been,  and  so  it  will  always  con- 


^'-^  tinue.  It  is  the  Churches  that  are  dis- 
united, and  it  is  of  the  unification,  not  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  of  the  Churches,  of  which  this  little 
book  treats.  How  completely  this  may  ulti- 
mately be  realized  the  author  does  not  undertake 
to  say ;  but  with  all  measures  and  methods  which 
look  in  that  direction,  provided  they  are  sound 
in  their  underlying  principles,  and  sane  in  their 
recognition  of  existing  conditions  he  is  in  hearty 
sympathy.  He  is  confident  also  that  beyond  all 
that  has  yet  been  achieved  other  immense  ad- 
vances toward  unification  of  the  Churches  are 
practicable  in  our  day,  and  deserve  whole-souled 
co-operation. 

This  subject  is  commanding  an  attention  that 
is  unusual  both  as  to  its  extent  and  as  to  its  in- 
tensity. However,  most  of  what  is  spoken  or 
written  in  regard  to  it  has  reference  only  to  some 
particular  phase  of  it,  or  to  some  proposed  pro- 
ject. The  author  of  this  little  book  aims  here  at 
a  comprehensive  though  brief  presentation  of  the 
entire  subject  both  on  its  theoretical  and  on  its 
practical  side.  He  craves  an  unprejudiced  and 
considerate  reading.  D.  W.  F, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


PART  FIRST 

The  Problem 


I 


PRESENT  DISUNION ;  AND  WHY 
CCORDING  to  the  latest  Religious  Bul- 


letin published  by  the  Bureau  of  the 


Census  there  was  in  1906  a  total  of  169 
or  170  distinct  Christian  Denominations  in  the 
United  States.  Of  these  164  are  set  down  as 
Protestant;  the  remainder  consisting  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  several  Oriental 
Churches  now  having  organizations  in  this  coun- 
try, and  the  Polish  National  Church.  Nine- 
tenths  of  the  Protestants  belong  to  nine  great 
families  of  Churches,  which,  named  in  the  order 
of  the  size  of  their  respective  aggregate  mem- 
bership, are: — Methodists,  13  or  14  kinds;  Bap- 
tists, 16  kinds;  Lutherans,  24  kinds;  Presbyteri- 
ans, 12  kinds;  Disciples,  2  kinds;  Episcopalians, 
2  kinds ;  Reformed,  4  kinds ;  United  Brethren,  2 
kinds;  Congregationalists,  i  kind  but  all  indi- 
vidual organizations  independent.  These  to- 
gether aggregate  76  or  77  kinds.  The  other  one- 
tenth  of  the  Protestant  membership  is  divided 
among  the  87  bodies  not  included  in  the  larger 
families.    During  the  period  between  1890  and 


[II] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


1906,  the  Census  shows  a  very  considerable  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  Christian  denominations ; 
the  net  aggregate  after  deducting  those  which 
disappeared  within  the  period  being  34,  most  of 
which  consist  of  Protestants. 

Why  are  there  so  many  of  these  distinct  bodies 
of  Christians  in  the  United  States,  and  why  espe- 
cially have  we  so  many  kinds  of  Protestants? 
There  is  no  country  where  Christians  are  not 
more  or  less  separated  from  each  other  by  eccle- 
siastical lines.  Ever  since  apostolic  times,  and 
even  then,  there  have  been  at  least  the  beginnings 
of  such  divisions.  It  is  thus  apparent  that  it 
would  be  futile  to  seek  an  explanation  for  their 
presence  here  wholly  in  conditions  peculiar  to 
our  own  land.  At  the  same  time  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  in  no  other  country  to-day,  and  at 
no  time  in  the  past  of  any  nation,  has  this  dis- 
unity even  approximated  to  that  which  obtains 
here  at  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century  of 
the  Christian  era.  This  cannot  be  entirely  what 
we  usually  call  accidental;  there  must  be  in  the 
condition  of  things  peculiarities  which  at  least 
throw  the  door  open  for  it.  What  is  the  explana- 
tion? 

One  of  the  conditions  that  operate  powerfully 
in  opening  the  way  for  this  disunity  is  the  equal- 
[12] 


Present  Disunion;  and  Why 


ity  of  all  forms  of  religious  belief  and  practice 
before  the  laws  of  the  land.  This  is  not  en- 
tirely unlimited.  Actions  which  endanger  society 
in  any  of  its  vital  interests  are  not  permitted 
under  the  name  of  religion,  without  exposure  to 
the  intervention  of  the  civil  authorities ;  but  be- 
yond this,  every  man  is  not  only  free  to  associate 
himself  with  any  religious  body,  but  he  is  pro- 
tected from  interference  just  as  much  as  if  all 
our  people  belonged  to  a  single  Church.  This 
complete  equality  before  the  law  does  not  cause 
disunity,  but  it  leaves  the  door  wide  open  for  it. 
Besides,  in  seeking  an  explanation  it  needs  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  withdrawal  of  an  old 
restraint  against  which  men  have  fretted  some- 
times is  followed  by  a  tendency  to  run  to  excess 
in  the  use  of  the  new  freedom.  Equality  for  all 
forms  of  religious  belief  is  comparatively  a  new 
thing  in  the  world  at  large;  and  except  in  the 
outlying  possessions  of  Great  Britain,  it  does  not 
exist  elsewhere  than  in  the  United  States ;  though 
in  some  other  countries  there  is  an  evident  move- 
ment toward  it. 

Another  condition  that  has  had  much  to  do 
with  this  diversity  is  the  place  which  religion 
has  held  in  the  life  of  our  people.  In  the  found- 
ing of  the  original  thirteen  colonies'  there  was 

[13] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


not  one  in  which  some  phase  of  Christian  belief 
did  not  have  a  very  great  influence.  Let  it  suf- 
fice to  point  here  to  the  Puritans  in  Massachu- 
setts, the  Baptists  in  Rhode  Island,  the  Quakers, 
the  German  Protestants,  and  the  Presbyterians 
in  Pennsylvania,  the  Roman  Catholics  in  Mary- 
land, and  the  Huguenots  in  the  Carolinas.  Down 
to  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  century  re- 
ligion has  continued  to  occupy  an  uppermost 
place  in  the  thoughts  and  practices  of  our  people. 
Of  this  we  have  convincing  evidence  in  the  pro- 
vision which  by  voluntary  contribution  has  con- 
stantly been  made  for  public  worship ;  and  which 
has  been  carried  so  far  that,  except  in  our  large 
cities,  it  has  been  difficult  to  find  a  town  or  village 
where  there  has  not  been  an  excess  rather  than 
an  insufficiency  of  church  buildings  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  the  inhabitants.  More  or  less 
the  atmosphere  of  religion  has  been  breathed  by 
our  people;  only  the  very  lowest  in  intelligence 
and  morality,  and  a  few  folk  at  the  top  as  to 
social  pretension,  being  little  afifected  by  it.  If 
recently  in  some  localities  religion  is  just  now 
less  in  evidence,  it  is  a  change  which  awakens 
surprise  among  the  most  of  us,  and  especially 
among  the  older  of  our  generation. 

A  third  condition  conducing  to  this  disunity  is 

[14] 


Present  Disunion;  and  Why 


the  heterogeneity  of  our  population.  This  was 
a  characteristic  at  the  beginning  of  our  national 
existence,  and  prior  to  it.  New  England  was 
then  the  most  homogeneous,  having  been  settled 
mainly  by  English  of  the  middle  class.  To  New 
York,  beside  the  English  came  the  Dutch;  to 
New  Jersey  and  Delaware,  the  Swedes ;  to  Penn- 
sylvania, the  English,  Scotch  Irish,  and  the  Pa- 
latinate Germans  ;  to  Virginia  and  to  other  south- 
ern colonies,  the  English  gentry,  and  also  the 
negro ;  and  to  the  Carolinas,  the  French ;  and 
each  of  these  brought  with  them  customs  and  be- 
liefs, religious  and  other,  which  long  survived, 
and  which  have  not  even  yet  entirely  disap- 
peared. In  Pennsylvania,  for  example,  there  are 
regions,  rich  in  agricultural  products,  where  a  lan- 
guage which  was  a  dialect  of  the  Fatherland  sur- 
vives, and  with  it  phases  of  religious  belief  and 
practice  which  were  transported  to  the  new  world 
when  long  ago  the  settlers  fled  thither  across  the 
ocean  in  order  to  find  a  refuge  from  oppression. 
Since  the  establishment  of  our  independence  a 
stream  of  emigration,  in  recent  times  swollen 
into  a  flood  has  been  pouring  into  our  land.  For 
the  first  decade  of  the  twentieth  century,  the  av- 
erage of  arrivals  has  not  varied  much  from  a 
million  per  year;  and  as  to  nativity  the  diversity 

[15] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 

has  been  constantly  on  the  increase.  Some  bring 
with  them  their  old  national  faiths  and  practices 
still  essentially  unchanged ;  others  are  drifting 
away  from  their  ancient  moorings;  and  some 
have  left  behind  them  all  the  religion  they  ever 
even  outwardly  possessed.  We  are  ninety  mil- 
lions of  people,  of  enormously  varied  origin 
either  by  descent  or  by  present  day  immigration, 
and  we  occupy  a  vast  territory,  with  physical 
conditions,  and  with  products  so  varied  that  these 
again  co-operate  in  enabling  people  of  kindred 
mind  to  collect  in  localities  in  sufficient  numbers 
to  perpetuate  ancient  customs,  religious  as  well 
as  other.  This  is  especially  exemplified  in  the 
multiplication  of  distinct  Lutheran  Churches.  By 
immigration  alone  between  1890  and  1906  we 
added  il  new  denominations.  To  some  degree 
also  the  birth  of  entirely  new  denominations  on 
our  own  soil  can  in  certain  instances  easily  be 
traced  largely  to  local  conditions.  Of  this  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  and  the  African 
Churches  are  well  known  examples. 

Still  a  fourth  condition  tending  to  open  the  door 
for  the  prevailing  diversity  as  to  religious  de- 
nominations in  our  country  is  the  entire  freedom 
of  thought  and  the  liberty  of  speech  which  ob- 
tain. There  is  no  subject  on  which  under  our 
[16] 


Present  Disunion;  and  Why 


government  a  man  may  not  think  and  believe  as 
he  pleases ;  and  by  virtue  of  this  exemption  from 
interference  on  the  part  of  others,  a  very  large 
part  of  our  people  have  it  bred  in  them  to  show 
independence  in  their  ideas  and  convictions;  and 
this  just  as  much  in  religion  as  in  any  other 
sphere.  It  may  be  that  in  doing  this  a  good 
many  exhibit  more  independence  than  wisdom; 
yet  it  is  done.  Nor  need  any  one  hold  his  tongue, 
or  restrain  his  pen,  provided  he  keeps  within  the 
limits  of  decency  and  the  requirements  of  civil- 
ized society.  There  is  no  vagary  of  ideas  that 
he  may  not  preach  on  the  housetops ;  and  there 
is  nothing  of  which  Americans  are  more  assured 
than  that,  in  spite  of  all  the  wild  religious  views 
and  the  diversity  of  religious  organizations  to 
which  it  unbars  the  door,  such  liberty  of  thought 
and  of  speech  is  beyond  comparison  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  its  restraint  or  serious  abridgment. 

Put  these  four  conditions  together,  and  shall 
any  one  consider  it  inexplicable  that  just  now  we 
have  so  many  distinct  religious  sects  in  the 
United  States,  and  that  164  of  these  are  Protest- 
ant ?  However,  it  is  evident  that  the  multiplication 
of  Protestant  denominations  in  the  United  States 
is  by  no  means  wholly  due  to  these  peculiar  con- 
ditions; for,  except  as  legal  hindrances  stand  in 

[17] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


the  way,  a  tendency  in  the  same  direction  shows 
itself  in  other  countries.  Two  great  questions, 
therefore,  present  themselves  when  we  advance 
to  a  point  from  which  we  look  out  also  on  the 
world  at  large.  The  first  of  these  is  whether 
there  is  in  the  essential  nature  of  Protestantism 
anything  that  furnishes  opportunity  for  such 
ecclesiastical  differentiation.  Unquestionably  the 
answer  must  be  in  the  affirmative.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  Protestant- 
ism that  in  religion  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  binding  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  Its  adherents  are  at  lib- 
erty to  respect  the  interpretation  put  upon  the 
Scriptures  by  the  concensus  of  Christian  thought ; 
or,  to  respect  in  a  lesser  degree  the  creeds  and 
decisions  of  ecclesiastical  organizations ;  or,  in 
a  still  lower  measure,  the  opinions  of  wise  and 
good  individuals.  But  in  the  case  of  any  ques- 
tioning the  final  arbiter  is  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. These,  however,  as  a  rule  do  not  give  us 
the  truth  in  the  form  of  statements  which  must 
have  the  same  significance  to  all  men.  Indeed, 
most  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament  is  in 
the  form  of  concrete  expressions  made  at  various 
times  and  in  various  places,  in  order  to  meet 
passing  conditions,  and  are  more  or  less  colored 
[i8] 


Present  Disunion;  and  Why 


by  these  conditions;  and  for  the  purposes  of 
other  times  and  places  the  permanent  element 
needs  to  be  disentangled  from  the  dress  in  which 
it  was  clothed.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally 
a  fundamental  principle  of  Protestantism  that 
every  man  has  the  right  to  exercise  his  own 
private  judgment  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures.  Nor  does  he  abandon  this  right  by 
virtue  of  becoming  a  member  of  an  ecclesiastical 
organization.  In  the  formation  of  such  organiza- 
tions it  is  indispensable  that  some  common  bond 
of  belief  or  practice  shall  be  accepted.  Even  if 
this  common  bond  is  negative  in  some  cases 
and  consists  in  the  ignoring  of  any  creed, 
the  negation  has  all  the  functions  of  a  creed. 
But  in  the  implied  subscription  which  every  per- 
son in  joining  a  Church  necessarily  makes,  and 
which  at  the  very  least  signifies  that  he  finds  in 
the  doctrines  and  polity  of  that  denomination 
nothing  so  repugnant  to  his  conscience  that  he 
cannot  honestly  identify  himself  with  it,  he  yet 
always  as  a  Protestant  holds  that  he  has  the  right 
to  question  any  teaching  of  his  denomination; 
and  to  carry  his  case  to  the  Scriptures  and  there 
to  ascertain  for  himself  what  is  truth  and  what  is 
duty. 

It  is  as  to  these  two  fundamental  principles 
[19] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


that  Protestantism  differs  most  radically  from 
Roman  Catholicism.  Both  concede  the  binding 
authority  of  the  Scriptures ;  but  the  Roman 
Catholic  faith  is  that  within  the  Church  of  which 
the  Pope  is  the  visible  head  on  earth  exists,  and 
always  is  operative,  the  right  to  bind  the  con- 
sciences of  men  by  an  official  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures.  The  Vatican  Council  went  so 
far  as  to  declare  that  the  Pope  when  speaking 
ex  cathedra  concerning  matters  of  faith  is  infal- 
lible. Of  course,  for  all  who  accept  that  dogma 
it  is  easy  to  preserve  an  outward  ecclesiastical 
unity.  On  the  other  hand,  it  being  of  the  very 
essence  of  Protestantism  to  hold  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  only  binding  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, and  that  every  man  always  has  the  right  of 
private  judgment  in  such  matters,  the  way  is  thus 
opened  for  diversity  of  denominations;  and  they 
in  all  countries  make  their  appearance  just  in  pro- 
portion as  men  do  not  see  alike,  and  as  they  esti- 
mate the  importance  of  their  differences  con- 
cerning religious  truth.  Hence  it  was  that  early 
in  the  Reformation  in  Europe  Protestants  drew 
apart  into  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches. 
Hence  also  these  two  great  families  have  been 
perpetuated  on  the  Continent,  and  others  that  are 
minor  in  numbers  have  appeared  from  time  to 

[20] 


Present  Disunion;  and  Why 

time.  In  Great  Britain  questions  have  rent  Pro- 
testants into  a  variety  of  Churches  only  a  little 
less  multitudinous  than  in  the  United  States.  In 
fact,  one  reason  why  we  have  so  many  is  because, 
besides  those  which  are  indigenous  we  have  in- 
herited so  many  from  the  old  world. 

Here  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the 
other  and  still  larger  question  involved  in  this 
general  subject.  Is  there  in  the  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity anything  that  opens  the  door  for  eccle- 
siastical differentiation  into  separate  religious 
bodies  ?  To  this  an  affirmative  answer  must  also 
be  given,  because  of  the  distinction  which  sub- 
sists between  Christianity  in  its  essence,  and  the 
visible  Church.  A  man  cannot  be  a  Free  Mason 
without  first  joining  a  lodge ;  it  is  joining  a  lodge 
that  makes  him  a  Free  Mason.  It  is  not  the 
joining  of  a  Church  that  makes  a  man  a  Chris- 
tian. It  is  easy  to  conceive  a  situation,  for  in- 
stance in  a  heathen  land,  where  because  the  con- 
vert is  alone  in  his  new  faith  and  practice,  it  is 
impossible  for  him  to  unite  with  a  Church ;  and 
yet  he  may  be  a  genuine  Christian.  Sacramen- 
tarians  theorize  that  grace  comes  ordinarily 
through  such  ecclesiastical  rites  as  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper;  but  even  they  seldom  fail 
to  have  a  hope  that  a  great  many  people  who  fail 

[21] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


to  receive  these  sacraments  as  they  conceive  that 
these  should  be  administered,  yet  have  received 
enough  of  divine  grace  to  unbar  for  them  the 
gates  of  heaven  at  death.  As  a  rule  it  would  be 
esteemed  among  Protestants  a  mark  of  bigotry 
not  to  distinguish  between  the  essentials  of  a 
Christian  life  and  admission  to  any  ecclesiastical 
organization.  The  conception  of  the  Church 
generally  entertained  among  Protestants  is  that 
it  is  only  an  auxiliary  of  Christianity,  altogether 
unique  as  such,  and  one  that  has  been  divinely 
sanctioned  and  established ;  yet  only  an  auxiliary. 
Its  function  is  to  take  advantage  of  the  social 
side  of  our  natures,  for  the  purpose  of  building 
up  those  who  are  already  Christians,  in  their  re- 
ligious life;  and  of  giving  efficiency  to  the  work 
of  evangelizing  those  who  are  without  the  fold. 
What  is  essential  to  make  a  Christian  is  easily 
ascertainable  in  the  Scriptures.  Repentance  for 
sin,  regeneration,  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour, 
an  upright  and  devout  life,  and  such  things  are 
all  that  are  necessary.  Roman  Catholics  and 
Protestants  differ  in  their  opinion  as  to  the  way  in 
which  these  are  secured ;  but  what  Roman  Cath- 
olic or  Protestant  will  say  that  any  man  who 
possesses  them  is  not  a  genuine  Christian?  The 
Scriptures  are  so  clear  on  this  subject  that  denial 

[22] 


Present  Disunion;  and  Why 


is  excluded.  When  we  turn  to  them  for  light  as 
to  the  Church  we  find  the  situation  very  different. 
They  unequivocally  recognize  the  Church  as  a  di- 
vine institution.  They  tell  us  of  the  foundation 
on  which  it  must  be  built.  They  inform  us  also 
about  particular  Churches,  and  lay  down  regula- 
tions for  some  of  their  affairs.  But  beyond  all 
these  things,  all  is  left  to  Christians  to  decide  for 
themselves.  The  most  that  can  reasonably  be 
claimed  by  any  denomination  is  that  its  members 
think  that  it  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  New 
Testament  than  are  other  Churches.  There  may 
be  good  and  wise  Christians  who  hold  to  the 
divine  and  exclusive  right  of  Episcopacy,  or  of 
Presbyterianism,  or  of  Independency,  or  of  the 
vicegerency  of  the  Pope;  but  the  proofs  which 
they  offer  do  not  carry  general  conviction  in 
favor  of  any  one  of  these  positions.  The  Bible 
does  not  speak  with  such  distinctness  and  fulness 
on  this  subject  as  to  exclude  reasonable  question ; 
and  the  only  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  fact 
is  that  we  are  left  to  ascertain  for  ourselves,  with 
such  light  as  is  at  our  command,  what  to  do  in 
this  sphere  of  our  religious  activity.  That 
means  an  open  door  for  diversity  in  church  polity 
and  in  organization. 


[23] 


IT 


PRESENT  DISUNION ;— THE  GOOD,  AND 
THE  ILL  OF  IT 

IT  does  not  follow  because  we  have  found 
in  conditions  somewhat  peculiar  in  the 
United  States,  and  in  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  Protestantism,  and  in  the  very  nature  of 
Christianity,  influences  which  open  the  way  for 
the  existing  disunion  among  the  Churches,  that 
there  is  entire  justification  for  such  a  state  of 
things.  Surely  it  is  one  thing  to  show  how  this 
disunion  comes  to  exist,  and  quite  another  to 
vindicate  it  as  free  from  reprehensibiHty.  Be- 
fore we  are  prepared  to  pronounce  judgment  in 
regard  to  it  we  need  to  consider  all  that  can  le- 
gitimately be  urged  either  negatively  or  positively 
as  to  the  good  that  is  in  it,  just  as  fully  and  as 
dispassionately  as  we  consider  the  evils  of  it. 

It  certainly  is  true  that  the  essence  of  that 
unity  among  his  people  for  which  Christ  pleaded 
in  his  great  intercessory  prayer  remains  amid 
all  the  diversity  of  ecclesiastical  organizations. 

[24] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


"We  are  not  divided, 

All  one  body  we, 
One  in  hope  and  doctrine, 
One  in  charity." 

Were  this  not  so  denominationalism  would  be 
synonymous  with  apostasy.  Yet,  let  no  one  be 
blinded  by  this  fact  as  to  the  real  question  at 
issue.  It  is  not  whether  a  worse  thing  is  not 
conceivable ;  it  is  what  ought  to  be  our  estimate 
as  to  the  good  or  evil  of  that  which  exists. 

It  can  be  irrefutably  claimed,  also,  that  even 
the  extreme  of  ecclesiastical  disunity  which  ob- 
tains, for  instance,  in  the  United  States  is  prefer- 
able to  an  outward  unity  brought  about  by  cer- 
tain sacrifices.  Better  as  it  is  among  us  than 
to  be  without  the  existing  equality  of  all  denom- 
inations before  the  law;  or  that  we  should  be 
seriously  deprived  of  freedom  of  thought,  or  of 
liberty  of  speech,  or  for  religion  to  lose  its  in- 
fluence in  the  life  of  our  people,  to  such  a  de- 
gree, that  out  of  a  latitudinarian  indifference  they 
maintain  an  external  ecclesiastical  unity.  In  the 
mind  of  some  persons  there  seems  to  be  a  vag^e 
sentimetit  that  the  time  has  come  for  good  Chris- 
tians to  ignore  the  lines  which  since  the  Reforma- 
tion have  separated  between  Protestants  and 

[25] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


Roman  Catholic.  No  doubt  as  these  parties  come 
to  know  each  other  better,  and  more  and  more 
fully  to  assign  respectively  to  the  essentials  and 
to  the  non-essentials  of  Christianity  their  due 
place,  much  of  the  old  bitterness  will  very  prop- 
erly disappear,  and  more  respect  will  be  shown 
for  opposing  conscientious  convictions.  They 
need  not  hold  each  other  to  be  of  necessity  out- 
side of  the  true  universal  Church  of  Christ  in  the 
world.  All  of  this  may  help  to  kindle  the  hope 
that  a  day  is  coming  when  the  separation  begun 
at  the  Reformation  shall  be  brought  to  a  close. 
But  so  long  as  the  price  of  outward  unification  is 
the  abandonment  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Protestantism — the  acceptance  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  or  the 
right  of  private  judgment  in  their  interpretation, 
— it  is  useless  to  talk  or  plan  for  reunion  with  the 
Church  from  which  Luther  and  Calvin  and  Knox 
came  out  in  the  sixteenth  century.  If  to  be 
outwardly  one  it  is  indispensable  that  the  visible 
Church  be  elevated  from  the  place  of  the  chief 
auxiliary  of  Christianity  to  that  of  an  essential, 
then  let  it  remain  divided.  The  Reformation  was 
not  a  mistake ;  nor  has  Protestantism  outlived  its 
justification.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  hope 
of  final  reunion  is  futile,  but  it  does  recogjnize 
[26] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


hindrances  which  so  long  as  they  remain,  bar  the 
way  to  it. 

It  is  equally  true  that  disunion  is  not  too  great 
a  price  to  pay  for  peace.  When,  for  example,  the 
Church  of  Scotland  found  itself  hopelessly  torn 
by  two  factions  holding  diametrically  opposite 
views  concerning  certain  relations  to  the  State, 
the  secession  of  the  Free  Church  was  the  only 
way  to  end  the  controversy.  All  plans  for  the 
unification  of  the  Churches  which  proceed  upon 
the  assumption  that  past  divisions  have  in  every 
case  been  without  warrant,  ignore  the  conditions 
under  which  separation  has  occurred;  and  in 
doing  this  bring  an  unfair  accusation  against 
good  and  wise  men  who  preferred  peace  to  pro- 
tracted conflict.  This  is  not  saying  that  the  par- 
ties may  not  have  misapprehended  the  import- 
ance of  the  matters  over  which  they  have  battled ; 
or,  that  subsequently  they  or  others  may  not  be 
right  in  judging  that  in  the  lapse  of  time  these 
matters  have  lost  their  importance.  It  is  only  as- 
serting that  if  a  Church  is  torn  irreconcilably  by 
warring  factions  it  is  better  that  they  should 
separate  into  distinct  religious  bodies,  unless,  of 
course,  a  refuge  can  be  found  in  those  which  are 
already  in  existence. 

But  because  disunity  is  preferable  to  some- 

[27] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


thing  else  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be  esteemed 
a  good.  It  may  be  only  the  lesser  of  two  evils, 
just  as  we  say  that  there  are  worse  things  than 
death.  Unification  of  the  Churches  at  any  cost  is 
not  advocated  by  any  wise  and  good  Christian. 

It  is  often  asserted  that  denominationalism  has 
been  a  means  of  producing  very  considerable 
positive  good ;  and  this  also  may  be  frankly  con- 
ceded. For  example,  we  are  told  that  it  has 
stimulated  religious  activities.  It  is  by  no  means 
a  certainty  that  if  all  the  Protestants  of  this 
country  were  united  in  a  single  organization, 
they  would  obtain  as  much  money  as  they  do 
under  present  denominationalism.  When  by  a 
representative  assembly  it  is  decided  to  raise 
funds  for  some  great  object  such  as  foreign  mis- 
sions, and  an  allotment  is  made  respectively  for 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Lutherans,  Presbyterians, 
Congregationalists  it  is  not  alone  the  equity  of 
the  allotment  that  operates  to  bring  success:  a 
laudable  rivalry  stimulates  each  to  furnish  its 
quota.  Nor  can  it  be  shown  that  in  this  there 
is  anything  wrong  or  undesirable. 

Another  incidental  good  resulting  from  de- 
nominationalism is  that  because  it  presents  Chris- 
tianity in  its  practical  application  under  so  many 
different  phases,  it  appeals  to  a  greater  variety  of 
[28] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


people,  and  wins  adherents  that  otherwise  might 
be  gained.  This  is  perhaps  true  of  the  division 
of  the  Protestant  Churches  into  two  branches, 
one  maintaining  a  somewhat  elaborate  ritual,  and 
the  other  conducting  their  worship  almost  or  en- 
tirely without  a  ritual.  The  essentials  as  recog- 
nized by  any  two  denominations  may  be  the 
same;  but  it  may  be  that  it  is  something  in  their 
faith  or  usage  as  to  non-essentials  concerning 
which  they  differ,  that  attracts  some  persons  who 
but  for  this  would  stand  aloof  from  all  Churches 
and  even  Christianity  itself.  The  separation  of 
Christians  into  various  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tions has  exerted  an  important  influence  for  good 
beyond  the  sphere  of  the  Churches.  Some  of 
the  most  important  preliminary  battles  for  free- 
dom of  thought,  and  liberty  of  speech,  and  equal- 
ity before  the  law  have  been  fought  and  won 
largely  over  divisions  among  Christians;  and 
then  with  these  as  a  start  progress  has  been  con- 
tinued toward  a  like  state  of  things  in  the  po- 
litical and  in  other  social  spheres ;  and  in  the  per- 
manent maintenance  of  this  the  same  influence 
is  ever  effective.  In  the  United  States  where  so 
great  a  variety  of  Churches  build  their  houses  of 
worship  so  as  to  be  seen  of  every  one,  and  con- 
tinually proclaim  their  peculiar  ideas  of  Chris- 

[29] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


tianity,  it  would  be  impossible  unjustly  to  muzzle 
the  press  or  to  silence  speech  on  other  subjects. 

Yet  we  are  not  warranted  in  inferring  from 
the  good  which  incidentally  has  come  of  denomi- 
nationalism,  that  it  is  desirable.  The  ill  that  is 
produced  may  outweigh  the  good.  A  careful 
scrutiny,  for  instance,  reveals  in  the  rivalry  be- 
tween different  ecclesiastical  organizations  much 
that  is  greatly  to  be  deprecated,  often  descend- 
ing as  it  does  into  petty  jealousies,  and  into  un- 
brotherly  competition.  We  have  no  right  to 
look  only  at  the  better  side  of  this  influence. 
The  truth  is  that  all  such  results  are  only  inci- 
dental; and  our  judgment  is  of  little  value,  unless 
we  go  behind  whatever  is  casual  to  the  question 
radically  at  issue. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  can  be  said  by  way 
of  condonation  for  the  disunion  of  the  Churches 
a  very  widespread  sentiment  now  prevails  among 
intelligent  Christians  that  it  is  excessive,  harmful 
on  the  whole,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  cured  as 
rapidly  and  as  completely  as  practicable.  What 
are  the  reasons  for  this  attitude?  In  the  very 
forefront  of  these  is  the  conviction  that  many 
of  the  denominational  organizations  rest  upon 
peculiarities  of  doctrine  or  of  practice,  which  are 
not  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  separation 

[30] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


because  of  them.  In  the  Hst,  as  reported  by  our 
Census  Bulletin,  there  are  a  good  many  that  have 
no  other  reason  for  their  existence  than  some 
local  dissension,  or  some  matter  of  religious 
opinion  that  cannot  be  of  interest,  and  much  less 
can  be  of  any  considerable  importance  to  others 
besides  the  handful  of  people  who  have  em- 
braced it.  Most  of  these  will  soon  die;  but 
others  just  as  insignificant  will  arise,  if  we  judge 
by  what  has  taken  place  within  the  last  twenty 
years.  It  is  in  this  class  that  nearly  all  the  in- 
crease of  religious  bodies  has  occurred  within  the 
period  just  named.  It  may  be  wholly  impossible 
to  convince  the  adherents  of  these  ephemeral 
organizations  that  they  are  without  sufficient 
warrant,  and  are  therefore  to  be  deprecated ;  but 
such  is  the  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  vast 
majority  of  Christians;  and  this  is  so  evidently 
correct  that  argument  is  unnecessary. 

But  if  we  come  up  into  the  nine  great  Protest- 
ant families  in  whose  limits  are  found  nine-tenths 
of  all  our  Protestant  Church  membership,  we 
face  a  disunity  which  is  quite  as  unjustifiable. 
The  Methodists  constitute  the  largest  of  these 
families,  and  this  consists  of  the  following 
branches: — Methodist  Episcopal,  Union  Amer- 
ican Methodist  Episcopal,  African  Methodist 

[31] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


Episcopal,  African  Union  Methodist  Protestant, 
African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion,  Methodist 
Protestant,  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of 
America,  jMethodist  Episcopal  South,  Congrega- 
tional Methodist,  New  Congregational  Method- 
ist, Colored  Methodist  Episcopal,  Reformed  Zion 
Union,  Apostolic,  Primitive  Methodist  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  Free  Methodist 
Church  of  North  America,  Reformed  Methodist 
Union  Episcopal  Church.  Six  of  these  report 
less  than  ten  thousand  members,  and  four  of 
them  less  than  five  thousand.  If  we  turn  to  the 
Baptist  family,  it  is  still  worse  as  to  division.  The 
list  consists  of  the  following: — Northern  Bap- 
tist Convention,  Southern  Baptist  Convention, 
National  Baptist  Convention,  General  Six  Prin- 
ciple Baptists,  Seventh  Day  Baptists,  Free  Bap- 
tists, Freewill  Baptists,  General  Baptists,  Sepa- 
rate Baptists,  United  Baptists,  Baptist  Church  of 
Christ.  Primitive  Baptists,  Colored  Primitive 
Baptists  in  America,  Two-seed-in-the-spirit-pre- 
destinarian  Baptists,  Freewill  Baptists  (Bullock- 
ites).  United  American  Freewill  Baptists.  Of 
these,  six  have  less  than  ten  thousand  members, 
and  six  of  them  less  than  a  thousand.  The  Pres- 
byterians do  not  lag  behind  proportionally  in  the 
number  of  their  distinct  organizations.   Of  them 

[32] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


there  are: — The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  Cumberland  Presby- 
terian, Colored  Cumberland  Presbyterian,  Welsh 
Calvinistic  Methodist,  United  P  resbyterian  of 
North  America,  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  Associate  Synod  of  North  Amer- 
ica, Associated  Reformed  Synod  of  the  South, 
Synod  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church  of 
North  America,  Reformed  Presbyterian,  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  in  the  United  States  and 
Canada.  To  this  class  also  in  reality  belong  the 
Reformed  Church  in  America,  and  the  Reformed 
Church  in  the  United  States,  and  perhaps  one 
or  two  other  denominations.  Of  this  family  five 
or  six  branches  have  less  than  ten  thousand 
members;  three  have  less  than  a  thousand;  and 
one  reports  only  seventeen.  The  Lutherans  are 
still  more  divided,  and  the  same  fragmentary 
condition  runs  through  all  the  larger  families  of 
Churches,  and  down  into  some  of  the  lesser.  No 
doubt  something  can  be  said  in  extenuation  of 
this  state  of  things.  The  honesty  of  the  adher- 
ents of  the  various  bodies  may  be  conceded.  Yet 
the  mere  enumeration  is  enough  to  silence  any 
attempt  at  vindication. 

This  disunion  is  a  positive  occasion  of  harm  to 
the  cause  of  Christianity.    The  good  that  may 

[33] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


COTne  from  the  stimulus  of  rivalry  among  de- 
ncHninations  is  more  than  overbalanced  by  the  ills 
that  proceed  from  their  multiplication.  We  have 
left  far  behind  us  the  intolerance  of  which  were 
bom  such  horrors  as  the  IMassacre  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew's, the  burning  of  Servetus,  and  the 
harrj-ing  of  the  Covenanters, — horrors  due  in 
part  to  pohtical  partisanship,  yet  in  part  also  to 
religious  differences.  We  have  more  recently 
left  behind  us  also  the  debates  once  conducted 
in  pulpit  and  platform  between  Protestant  de- 
nominations; and  if  preachers  still  expound  to 
their  congregations  the  peculiarities  of  the  creed 
to  which  they  adhere,  they  do  it  in  such  a  way 
as  not  to  disregard  Christian  charity.  This,  and 
more  of  the  same  sort  relieve  the  denomina- 
tions of  much  of  the  opprobrium  once  heaped 
upon  them  for  their  attitude  toward  each  other. 
We  have  reached  a  time  when  in  many  of  our 
great  undenominational  Conventions,  we  join 
hands  and  sincerely  and  heartily  sing  together, 

"Blest  be  the  tie  that  binds 

Our  hearts  in  kindred  love: 
The  fellowship  of  kindred  minds 
Is  like  to  that  above." 

We  go  away  from  these  meetings  co  assist  in 
work  which  we  can  do  in  ccwnmon  for  our  Mas- 

[34] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


ten  This  is  both  beautiful,  and  prophetic  of  still 
closer  outward  unity.  Yet  we  owe  it  to  the  cause 
of  Christ  not  to  close  our  eyes  to  the  grievous 
ills  which,  because  of  the  separation  into  so  many 
varieties  of  ecclesiastical  organizations,  still  re- 
main. In  the  United  States  there  are  ministers 
of  the  gospel  and  other  Christian  workers  suf- 
ficient in  number,  if  each  one  had  a  distinct  parish 
or  field  of  labor  not  overlapped  by  any  other, 
and  for  the  religious  condition  of  which  he  ought 
to  regard  himself  as  responsible,  to  bring  the 
gospel  to  the  attention  of  every  home  and  of 
every  individual  capable  of  receiving  it.  Of 
course,  no  parish  system  could  be  so  enforced 
as  to  take  away  liberty  of  choice  as  to  place 
of  public  worship,  or  liberty  to  refuse  the  care 
of  any  or  of  all  Christian  pastors  and  workers. 
But  after  making  due  allowance  for  exceptional 
cases  a  specific  parish  or  field  of  labor  for  each 
minister  or  other  laborer  is  not  only  ideally  con- 
ceivable but  capable  of  an  approximation  to  real- 
ization. Dcnominationalism  as  we  have  it  ren- 
ders any  such  arrangement  impossible.  The  ter- 
ritories of  individual  churches  overlap  each  other, 
so  that  the  same  field  has  to  be  cultivated  by  a 
number  of  laborers  when  one  would  be  sufficient. 
Worse  still,  many  of  the  people  are  neglected, 

[35] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


simply  because  of  a  fear  that  they  belong  to  a 
congregation  other  than  that  of  some  minister 
who  gladly  would  care  for  them ;  and  that  it 
would  be  a  violation  of  comity  for  him  to  intrude 
himself  upon  them.  So  long  as  denominational 
overlapping  renders  an  effective  parish  system 
impracticable  it  seems  to  remain  inevitable  that 
multitudes  of  our  people  must  be  religiously  neg- 
lected. 

Thousands  of  villages  are  overstocked  with 
houses  of  worship  belonging  each  to  a  different 
denomination,  none  of  them  being  ever  filled  ex- 
cept for  a  union  service.  In  the  cities  largely 
throughly  rivalry  for  what  are  regarded  as  eli- 
gible locations,  a  half  dozen  or  more  houses  of 
worship  built  by  as  many  denominations  are  fre- 
quently crowded  into  the  same  neighborhood, 
sometimes  with  not  even  a  street  between  two 
or  more  of  them,  while  other  districts  swarming 
with  unchurched  people  are  abandoned  by  Pro- 
testants. This  irrational  disposition  of  what 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  chief  auxiliary  of 
Christianity  means  the  dissipation  of  forces 
which  under  a  more  unified  organization  of  the 
Churches  would  be  sufficient  to  overtake  with  the 
gospel  the  multitudes  of  our  people  who  arc 

[36] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


slightly  if  at  all  touched  by  its  power  to  uplift 
and  save  them.  Frequently  the  rectification  of 
foolish  and  unfruitful  rivalry  of  denominations 
on  a  common  territory  becomes  so  clearly  imper- 
ative that  it  has  to  be  attempted ;  but  such  an  un- 
dertaking is  apt  to  involve  difficulties  that  tax  the 
wisdom  and  patience  of  the  good  people  who 
engage  in  the  effort  even  to  the  breaking 
point. 

The  waste  of  men  and  of  means  in  the  conduct 
of  the  great  general  operations  of  the  Churches 
is  enormous.  Each  denomination  has  more  or 
less  of  its  own  colleges,  theological  seminaries, 
missionary  and  other  benevolent  Boards ;  and 
each  one  must  be  properly  equipped  with  Facul- 
ties, or  Secretaries,  and  other  officials,  and  must 
be  supported  with  adequate  income.  It  is  rare 
that  one  of  these  institutions,  or  any  person  con- 
nected with  the  management,  can  be  justly 
charged  with  a  lack  of  faithfulness  or  with  in- 
efficiency. Nevertheless  it  remains  true  that  were 
it  not  for  denominational  divisions  much  of  this 
machinery  could  be  combined  without  injury  to 
the  work,  with  an  immense  saving  of  expense, 
and  with  a  release  of  many  laborers  desirable  in 
other  fields. 

Notwithstanding  the  elimination  of  sectarian 
[37] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


alienation  to  such  a  large  degree  in  our  day,  and 
the  prevalence  and  practice  of  comity  and  co- 
operation, the  Churches  because  of  their  separa- 
tion into  so  many  different  organizations  work 
at  comparative  disadvantage  in  the  pursuit  of 
many  of  their  aims.  They  do  not  always  co- 
operate when  they  ought.  Often  when  co-opera- 
tion is  eventually  effected  valuable  time  is  lost 
in  doing  this,  and  subsequently  it  lacks  good 
common  leadership,  or  heartiness,  or  other  ele- 
ments of  efificiency,  because  of  defective  eccle- 
siastical unity.  One  need  only  to  watch  the  way 
in  which  the  Church  of  Rome  marshals  its  hosts 
in  order  to  accomplish  its  purposes,  to  learn  by 
contrast  the  applicability  in  this  sphere  of  the 
maxim  that  in  union  there  is  strength.  If  Pro- 
testantism, without  sacrificing  any  of  its  prin- 
ciples, moved  together  with  a  like  unbroken  visi- 
ble front  it  surely  often  would  accomplish  far 
more  than  it  does  under  present  conditions. 

It  may  be  that  such  ought  not  to  be  the  case, 
yet  it  certainly  is  true  that  denominational  dis- 
union has  a  powerful  tendency  to  prejudice  the 
cause  of  Christianity  in  the  estimation  of  the 
outside  world.  It  does  this  in  two  ways.  One 
of  these  is  by  leaving  a  wrong  impression  as  to 
the  real  nature  of  Christianity.    By  lifting  into 

[38] 


Present  Disunion — Good  and  III  of  It 


conspicuousness  the  minor  questions  over  which 
denominations  divide, — such  as  methods  of 
church  g-overnment  and  modes  of  administering 
sacraments,  and  such  insohible  problems  as  free- 
will and  predestination — it  obscures  in  a  measure 
the  more  vital  matters  such  as  repentance  and 
holy  living  and  redemption  through  Christ,  at 
least  as  seen  by  some  who  are  not  very  anxious 
to  see  aright.  It  is  easy  for  them  to  persuade 
themselves  that  Christianity  concerns  itself 
mostly  with  rather  small  matters.  The  other 
way  by  which  the  cause  of  Christianity  is  thus 
prejudiced  with  some  people  is  by  raising  in 
their  minds  the  question  whether  if  it  is  of  God  it 
would  divide  its  adherents,  and  so  weaken  their 
efficiency,  in  the  face  of  the  irreligion,  the  im- 
morality, the  superstition,  the  suffering,  and  the 
sorrowing  which  it  professes  to  have  come  to  re- 
move and  heal.  Of  course  they  are  not  justified 
in  it,  but  men  do  on  such  grounds  hold  them- 
selves aloof  from  the  gospel. 

Perhaps  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no 
passage  which  speaks  specifically  on  the  subject 
of  our  modern  dcnominationalism.  But  there  is 
not  a  word  said  by  Christ  or  by  his  apostles  that 
can  be  brought  forward  fairly  as  countenancing 
it.    The  mind  of  the  Spirit  as  recorded  for  us 

[39] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


is  always  in  favor  of  unity  among  Christians, 
and  no  distinctions  are  made  in  favor  of  toler- 
ance of  outward  disunity. 

For  the  reasons  thus  briefly  stated,  and  for 
others,  little  if  at  all  less  forcible  the  conviction 
has  been  formed  by  a  large  number  of  thoughtful 
and  devout  Christians  of  various  Churches,  and 
is  constantly  deepening  and  widening,  that  not- 
withstanding all  that  may  be  said  in  condonation 
of  past  disunity,  we  have  reached  a  period  when 
it  has  filled  up  much  of  the  measure  of  its  use- 
fulness, and  when  so  far  as  this  can  be  prudently 
done  it  should  as  rapidly  as  possible  be  brought 
to  an  end. 


[40] 


Ill 


REUNION,  AND  THE  WAY  TO  IT 

WE  need  to  distinguish  between  a  unifica- 
cation  that  is  ideal,  and  one  which  is 
practicable.  It  is  possible  to  imagine 
at  least  vaguely  a  single  ecumenical  visible 
Church  embracing  in  its  membership  all  profess- 
ing Christians  throughout  the  world.  In  fact, 
this  is  the  theory  of  the  Roman  Catholic  body. 
It  assumes  that  there  is  and  can  be  only  one 
true  Church,  and  that  this  is  found  only  in  its 
own  limits.  Few,  if  any  Protestants,  regard  a 
unification  after  that  manner  as  practicable  or  as 
necessary  for  the  best  interests  of  Christianity. 
Ideally  it  is  possible  to  conceive  unification  to  be 
carried  so  far  that  in  each  of  its  included  differ- 
entiations in  the  world  at  large  the  non-essentials 
of  Christianity  should  be  so  kept  in  a  subordinate 
place  as  to  belief  and  practice  that  no  divisions 
would  arise  because  of  them ;  and  that  at  the 
same  time  all  the  essentials  should  universally 
be  retained.  One  can  conceive  of  an  ecumenical 
Council  assembling  in  order  to  confer  about  the 
great  common  interests  of  Christianity,  and  by 
its  leadership  mightily  promoting  them,  without 

[41] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


assuming  autocracy,  or  violating  the  liberties  of 
the  bodies  represented.  It  is  also  possible  at  least 
ideally  to  conceive  that  as  an  outcome  of  such 
a  state  of  things,  the  ecclesiastical  organizations 
which  continue  would  be  enormously  enriched 
by  the  fellowship  in  which  they  are  associated : 
for  there  is  no  great  denomination  incapable  of 
contributing  an  important  element.  Just  what 
would  be  inherited  from  each  we  cannot  now 
fully  ascertain;  but  we  can  see  that  Roman 
Catholicism  and  the  Oriental  Churches  have 
phases  which  are  of  great  value ;  and  that  every 
one  of  the  great  Protestant  families  could  with 
advantage  transmit  desirable  features. 

There  may  be  good  people  who  promptly  dis- 
miss the  suggestion  of  such  unification  as  a  mere 
figment  of  the  imagination,  and  as  unworthy  of 
serious  thought.  But  assuming  that  it  is  only  an 
ideal  incapable  of  a  near  approach  to  realization, 
are  we  justified  in  an  almost  contemptuous  dis- 
missal? Ideals  of  perfection  are  exceedingly 
healthful  stimulants.  None  of  us  in  this  life  will 
be  able  to  reach  perfection,  yet  the  thought  of  it 
draws  us  mightily  toward  it.  The  fault  is  ours 
if  the  conception  of  an  ideal  Church  does  not 
profit  us. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  unification  that  is  practica- 
[42] 


Reunion,  and  the  Way  to  It 


ble.  Here  we  are  confrorited  by  two  limitations 
setting  boundaries  over  which  no  passage  is  yet 
even  dimly  in  sight.  One  of  these  is  drawn  by 
the  national  divisions  into  which  the  world  is 
separated  for  the  purposes  of  government.  Mis- 
sionaries on  foreign  fields  are  almost  compelled 
at  first  to  consider  the  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tions which  they  form  there,  as  dependencies  of 
the  home  Churches;  but  so  soon  as  these  gain 
sufficient  strength  in  each  country  the  native 
Christians  set  up  for  themselves.  Occasionally 
Churches  of  adjacent  countries,  such  as  the 
United  States  and  Canada  ignore  national  bound- 
aries ;  but  these  are  apt  to  Ix;  only  temporary  ar- 
rangements. Nor  is  it  easy  to  see  how  this  can 
be  changed,  or  even  that  it  is  desirable,  if  it  were 
practicable.  The  utmost  that  the  most  enthusi- 
astic advocate  of  unification  can  reasonably  seek 
is  that  no  matter  how  the  Churches  are  separated 
by  reason  of  national  limitation,  they  shall  keep 
out  of  each  other's  way  on  missionary  fields,  and 
co-operate  so  far  as  possible  in  the  agencies  em- 
ployed ;  that  so  far  as  convenient  they  shall  con- 
sult together  as  to  matters  of  common  interest ; 
and  that  a  Christian  in  passing  from  one  nation 
to  another  shall  everywhere  be  welcomed  as  a 
brother  in  Christ. 

[43] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


The  other  limitation  setting  bounds  to  unifica- 
tion consists  of  irreconcilable  differences  as  to  es- 
sential beliefs  and  practices.  There  is  no  way  now 
open  for  bringing  together  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  the  Protestant  denominations.  This 
is  not  saying  that  in  the  future  the  barriers  be- 
tween them  may  not  be  removed.  But  before 
this  is  within  the  range  of  possibility,  either 
Roman  Catholicism  must  abandon  its  funda- 
mental principles,  or  the  Protestant  denomina- 
tions must  abandon  theirs ;  or,  at  least  these  prin- 
ciples must  be  treated  by  one  party  or  the  other 
as  not  fundamental, — which  in  reality  is  tanta- 
mount to  abandoning  them.  Upon  the  assump- 
tion that  this  is  true  beyond  all  reasonable  ques- 
tion what  should  be  the  attitude  of  these  two 
great  bodies  of  professing  Christians  toward 
each  other?  One  of  the  things  most  to  be  de- 
sired is  for  them  to  seek  an  intelligent  acquaint- 
ance with  the  beliefs  and  practices  concerning 
which  they  differ,  and  also  those  concerning 
which  they  agree,  and  the  reasons.  Much  of 
the  popular  feeling  against  each  other  is  the  re- 
sult of  inherited  prejudices  and  ignorance.  On 
the  other  hand,  to  ignorance  and  mere  sentiment 
is  due  the  disposition  among  so  many  people  to 
dismiss  the  differences  between  Roman  Catholi- 

[44] 


Reunion,  and  the  Way  to  It 


cism  and  Protestantism  as  of  no  more  vital  im- 
portance than  those  which  separate  IMethodists 
and  Baptists  and  Presbyterians  into  distinct  eccle- 
siastical families.  What  is  needed  is,  not  to  dig 
up  the  ugly  incidents  of  religious  intolerance  and 
superstition  in  the  past,  the  very  spirit  of  which 
our  age  has  left  behind  in  all  the  enlightened  na- 
tions ;  but  to  inform  ourselves  as  to  the  radical 
divergences  which  underlie  these  great  divisions 
of  Christendom.  Then  alone  can  we  proceed  in 
a  manner  worthy  of  people  professing  to  be 
Christians.  Of  course,  there  are  many  moral 
and  religious  objects  also  for  attaining  which 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  can  now  co- 
operate sometimes  unitedly,  sometimes  each 
along  its  own  lines.  Nor  should  it  be  regarded 
as  disgraceful  proselytism  for  either  party  to  seek 
adherents  from  whatever  quarter  available,  so 
long  as  this  is  done  by  open,  fair,  and  intelligent 
presentation  of  what  is  held  to  be  the  truth.  All 
this  means  that  any  unification  of  such  great  di- 
visions of  Christendom  as  the  Oriental,  the 
Roman  Catholic,  and  the  Protestant  Churches  is 
not  now  in  sight  above  the  horizon ;  and  that  if 
such  a  consummation  ever  is  reached  it  must  be 
by  first  looking  realities  squarely  in  the  face. 
The  only  field  yet  fairly  open  for  unification  is 

[45] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


within  the  rank  of  the  Protestant  denominations 
of  a  particular  country,  such  as  the  United  States. 
Here  again  the  most  hopeful  realm  is  within  the 
respective  great  families ;  though  it  is  by  no 
means  wholly  restricted  to  them,  even  in  our  own 
land  and  still  less  so  in  foreign  missionary  coun- 
tries. It  is  equally  true  that  between  actual 
imion  and  present  division  in  any  particular  case 
there  may  be  various  stages.  The  earliest  step 
may  be  very  small,  and  it  may  require  years  to 
prepare  the  way  for  another  that  is  longer;  yet 
no  movement  of  this  sort  deserves  to  be  despised 
or  neglected.  So  far  as  the  situation  now  is 
hopeful,  it  is  mainly  because  of  preliminary  steps 
that  may  by  and  by  lead  on  to  more  complete 
unification.  But  although  the  field  at  present  is 
so  limited,  and  although  progress  is  so  slow,  this 
is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  dismissing  the  prob- 
lem as  too  little  capable  of  solution  to  command 
attention  or  eflfort.  Of  course,  it  would  be  worse 
than  a  mistake  for  any  Christian  to  neglect  the 
work  that  invites  him  within  the  denominations 
now  existing,  because  he  hopes  and  prays  for  the 
coming  of  a  day  when  the  visible  Church  shall  be 
less  divided. 

There  are  some  dangers,  however,  against 
which  warning  may  not  be  wholly  useless.   It  is 

[46] 


Reunion,  and  the  Way  to  It 


possible  to  attempt  unification  on  a  basis  that 
does  not  justify  it.  Concerning  what  either  party 
in  a  given  case  holds  to  be  essentials  there  must 
first  be  agreement.  Concerning  what  may  be  re- 
garded as  non-essentials  there  must  be  toleration 
of  differences.  It  has  been  well  said  that  the  rule 
must  be  comprehension,  not  compromise.  Only 
as  denominations  come  to  see  their  agreement  in 
essentials,  and  to  comprehend  in  their  tolera- 
tion differences  about  non-essentials,  is  it  either 
practicable  or  desirable  to  weld  them  into  union. 
In  our  enthusiasm  for  so  great  a  cause  it  is  easy 
to  lose  sight  of  this  vital  principle,  and  to  waste 
strength;  and  to  prejudice  the  main  object,  which 
should  be  to  bring  together  only  congruous  ele- 
ments. This  seems  to  be  the  mistake  now  making 
by  the  well-meant  efforts  of  that  body  of  Chris- 
tians which  insists  upon  the  "historic  episcopate." 

Another  danger  to  be  avoided  is  excessive 
haste.  It  might  be  that  if  a  popular  vote  of  the 
members  of  the  dozen  Presbyterian  bodies  in  this 
country  could  be  taken  on  the  desirability  of 
union  as  an  abstract  question,  the  majority  would 
bt  overwhelmingly  in  the  affirmative.  But  were 
that  majority  now  to  proceed  to  carry  into  effect 
this  vote,  there  might  be  so  much  dissent  on  the 
part  of  large  minorities  in  a  number  of  these 

[47] 


The  JJyiificaUon  of  the  Churches 


bodies,  so  much  bitterness,  so  many  lawsuits,  so 
many  fragmentary  remains  left  outside  the  new 
organization,  that  it  would  be  a  reasonable  ques- 
tion whether  it  would  not  have  been  better  to 
wait  for  more  favorable  conditions.  When  the 
Old  and  the  New  School  Presbyterians  united 
the  advance  toward  this  consummation  was  an 
example  of  most  commendable  patience  and  wis- 
dom in  dealing  with  obstacles.  It  was  reached 
so  slowly,  and  such  care  was  taken  to  satisfy  all 
objections,  that  no  fragments  were  left  behind 
when  the  union  was  finally  effected;  and  no  seri- 
ous dissensions  on  account  of  it  have  since  dis- 
turbed the  united  Church.  One  of  the  most 
hopeful  conditions  affecting  the  present  negotia- 
tions between  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United 
States  and  tlie  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  is  the  unavoidable  ne- 
cessity of  waiting  several  years  before  a  union 
can  be  consummated.  Like  delay  possibly  might 
have  made  the  absorption  of  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church  more  complete.  Neverthe- 
less there  is  another  side  to  this  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject It  by  no  means  follows  that  because  a 
union  between  two  denominations  cannot  be  ef- 
fected with  entire  completeness,  it  should  be 
abandoned.    It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  com- 

[48] 


Reunion,  and  the  Way  to  It 


ing  together  of  the  Free  and  the  United  Presby- 
terian Church  in  Scotland  left  on  the  outside  the 
little  fragment  held  to  be  legally  the  Free  Church, 
and  that  it  was  followed  by  the  controversy  over 
property.  But  there  are  few  thoughtful  people 
who  upon  careful  consideration  of  the  whole 
matter  would  not  heartily  approve  the  coming  to- 
gether of  the  two  bodies.  In  all  cases,  there  is  a 
possibility  of  erring  on  the  side  of  haste,  or  of 
erring  on  the  opposite  side  of  inertia ;  and  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  risk  must  be  taken. 

To  some  persons  longing  for  unification  ap- 
proximating to  the  ideal  and  eager  for  a  rapid 
advance  toward  it,  what  has  been  said  as  to  the 
limits  within  which  it  is  now  practicable,  and 
as  to  the  pitfalls  to  be  avoided,  may  seem  in 
promise  to  fall  so  utterly  short  of  meeting  the 
demands  of  the  situation  that  they  must  withhold 
their  approval  and  co-operation.  But  what  are 
such  persons  expecting  to  do?  They  may  stand 
at  one  side  and  criticize  such  movements  as  are 
making',  because  they  are  so  slow  and  so  small ; 
but  the  only  influence  of  such  an  attitude  is  to 
retard  the  very  work  with  which  they  are  in 
sympathy,  for  the  reason  that  it  discourages 
friends  who  in  their  way  are  lending  a  hand. 
Or,  they  may  in  the  heat  of  their  zeal  rush  out 

[49] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


of  the  existing  ranks  and  undertake  to  march  by 
themselves,  and  with  greater  rapidity;  but  the 
only  result  of  that  course  is  to  add  an  additional 
division  to  those  already  existing  in  Christen- 
dom. The  no-creed  parties  under  present  condi- 
tions tend  to  make  just  so  many  more  denomina- 
tions among  Protestants.  The  right  thing  for 
all  who  long  for  the  ideal  unification,  or  an  ap- 
proximation to  it,  is  to  encourage  and  help  so 
far  as  practicable — not  every  scheme  holding  up 
this  as  its  aim  but  every  movement  making  in 
that  direction,  and  having  real  promise  of  ef- 
ficiency and  of  benefit  to  Christianity. 


[50] 


PART  SECOND 

Progress 


IV 


IN  CHRISTIAN  COUNTRIES 

WHAT  progress  has  been  made  in  recent 
times  toward  the  solution  of  this  prob- 
lem? Broadly  speaking,  the  world 
over,  the  great  outstanding  landmarks  of  the  ad- 
vance consist  of  Comity,  Co-operation,  Alliance, 
Federation,  and  Union.  But  these  have  taken 
upon  themselves  such  distinctive  characteristics 
respectively  in  Christian  lands,  and  on  foreign 
mission  fields  that  it  is  most  satisfactory  to  con- 
sider the  subject  successively  from  these  two 
points  of  view. 

Comity  is  simply  courtesy;  and  between  de- 
nominations, as  between  individuals,  it  may  be 
practiced  independently  of  any  organization  or 
regulations.  When,  for  example,  a  Presbyterian 
house  of  worship  is  destroyed  by  fire,  and  the 
Methodists  say.  Come  over  and  use  our  building 
at  certain  hours,  that  is  Church  comity.  It  takes 
innumerable  forms  according  to  circumstances, 
and  is  constantly  on  the  increase.  Much  of  it  is 
far  more  than  mere  neighborliness ;  it  is  an  ex- 
pression of  the  conviction  of  the  brotherhood  of 

[53] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


all  Christians,  notwithstanding  their  separation 
by  denominational  lines.  But  Church  comity  is 
no  longer  left  to  be  practiced  wholly  without  or- 
ganization or  regulations.  One  of  the  best  illus- 
trations of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Interdenomi- 
national Commissions  which,  under  a  variety  of 
names,  and  without  uniformity  of  methods  are 
operating  in  approximately  half  of  the  States  of 
our  country.  The  first  of  these  to  be  instituted 
is  that  of  Maine.  It  dates  back  now  some  twenty 
years.  Its  object  is  tersely  declared  to  be  to 
"allay  friction  between  denominations,  and  to 
prevent  the  waste  of  resources  in  unfruitful  ri- 
valry." It  aims  to  do  its  work  through  the  de- 
nominations, and  without  any  considerable  ma- 
chinery of  its  own.  Its  chief  service  thus  far  has 
consisted  in  bringing  together  in  neighborhoods 
or  towns  into  a  single  church  a  number  of  or- 
ganizations that  have  been  started  by  different 
denominations,  but  have  been  too  weak  to  be 
effective ;  or  to  anticipate  and  prevent  such  a 
mistake ;  and  to  do  this  by  arrangements  that  are 
equitable  and  satisfactory  to  all  parties.  In  some 
of  the  cities  of  our  country,  and  in  other  districts 
smaller  than  a  State,  associations  of  the  same 
general  type  have  been  formed,  and  have  done 
good,  the  amount  of  which  of  necessity  varies 

[54] 


In  Christian  Countries 


according  to  circumstances.  In  all  cases,  how- 
ever, they  claim  for  themselves  no  other  function 
than  to  help  and  guide  in  the  practice  of  the  cour- 
tesy which  is  born  of  the  spirit  of  Christianity, 
and  for  which  there  is  so  wide  and  needy  a  field. 

Co-operation  means  working  together  to  ac- 
complish some  purpose.  Of  course,  in  all  Church 
comity,  and  in  federation,  and  in  union  there  is 
co-operation  as  an  essential  element.  But  in  the 
relations  now  subsisting  between  the  denomina- 
tions this  term,  at  least  to  a  considerable  extent 
has  come  to  be  applied  to  combination  of  effort 
for  the  support  and  promotion  of  some  specific 
Christian  object.  Here,  again,  there  is  much  that 
is  undertaken  and  accomplished  independently  of 
organization  or  regulation.  Churches  co-operate 
when  each  in  its  own  sphere  has  a  part  in  any 
common  cause.  Often  merely  by  some  cotem- 
poraneous  expression  of  sentiment,  even  without 
so  much  as  a  common  public  meeting,  a  com- 
munity thus  is  safeguarded  against  encroach- 
ments of  evil  with  which  it  is  threatened ;  and  in 
the  same  way  some  positively  worthy  cause  is 
promoted.  More  and  more  this  is  coming  to  be 
recognized  and  practiced  among  Christians  of 
every  name. 

But  we  are  concerned  here  especially  with  or- 

[55] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


ganized  interdenominational  co-operation.  Only 
some  of  the  larger  examples  can  be  mentioned. 
Two  of  these  deserve  to  be  named  first,  because 
of  their  early  origin  and  their  continued  ef- 
ficiency:— the  Religious  Tract  Society  of  Lon- 
don, which  antedates  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  and  has  always  had  the  support  of  the 
evangelical  Christians  of  Great  Britain,  regard- 
less of  denomination,  and  the  British  and  For- 
eign Bible  Society,  which  followed  in  1804.  To 
the  same  class  belong  such  organizations  in  our 
own  country  as  The  American  Bible  Society,  The 
American  Tract  Society,  The  American  Sunday 
School  Union,  The  Woman's  Christian  Temper- 
ance Union,  the  Religious  Education  Society, 
The  Young  Men's  Christian  Associations,  The 
Young  Women's  Christian  Associations,  The 
Young  People's  Society  of  Christian  Endeavor, 
The  Brotherhood  of  Andrew  and  Philip,  The 
Order  of  King's  Daughters  and  Sons,  The  Stu- 
dent Volunteer  Association,  The  Layman's  Mis- 
sionary Association,  and  others.  Most  of  these 
directly  or  indirectly  comprehend  the  entire 
world  as  their  field  of  labor,  and  seek  under  an 
undenominational  flag  to  do  their  work.  Their 
existence  and  prosperity  show  that  the  lines 
which  divide  denominations  are  regarded  as  not 

[56] 


In  Christian  Countries 

running  deep  enough  to  touch  the  vitals  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  nature  of  what  are  called  Alliances  can 
best  be  understood  by  looking  at  the  two  leading 
examples.  Of  these  the  older  is  the  Evangelical, 
which  was  formed  in  1845.  -^^  to  its  territory 
it  aims  to  be  as  wide  as  the  world;  and  it  has  its 
branches  in  both  Christian  and  non-Christian 
lands.  As  the  name  indicates,  it  is  an  organiza- 
tion which  welcomes  into  its  membership  all 
Christians  who  can  be  fairly  regarded  as  "evan- 
gelical" in  their  faith  and  practice.  The  con- 
stitution sets  forth  its  object  as  "the  furtherance 
of  religious  opinion"  in  order  "to  manifest  and 
strengthen  Christian  unity,  and  to  promote  re- 
ligious liberty,  and  co-operation  in  Christian 
work,  without  interfering  with  the  internal  af- 
fairs of  the  different  denominations."  This  Al- 
liance has  rendered  valuable  service  of  various 
kinds.  Among  others  it  has  brought  to  bear 
the  weight  of  Christian  opinion  against  religious 
oppression  in  certain  nominally  Christian  coun- 
tries. Every  year  also  it  calls  the  Christian 
world  to  a  week  of  prayer,  and  names  for  it 
topics  which  a])peal  to  Christians  everywhere. 
In  the  United  States  it  lias  been  crowded  some- 
what aside  by  other  kindred  As^sociations ;  yet 

[57] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


it  has  continued  to  be  useful,  as  for  instance,  by 
arousing  public  sentiment  against  the  diversion 
of  public  money  to  the  support  of  sectarian  pur- 
poses. 

The  other  leading  example  of  this  kind  of  or- 
ganization is  "The  Alliance  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  throughout  the  World  holding  the 
Presbyterian  System."  Like  the  Evangelical  Al- 
liance it  reaches  out  its  arms  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth ;  but  it  draws  for  membership  only  upon 
one  great  family  of  Protestants.  It  has  not  been 
instituted  for  defence  against  any  of  the  other 
divisions  of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  or  for  aggres- 
sive warfare  upon  them;  its  sole  aim  is  to  in- 
crease the  efficiency  of  that  part  of  the  army 
which  marches  under  the  banner  of  Presby- 
terianism.  This  organization  represents  nine  de- 
nominations in  the  United  States,  with  a  con- 
stituency in  round  numbers  of  6,500,000;  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Canada,  with  a  constitu- 
ency of  600,000 ;  and  more  than  eighty  denomi- 
nations on  the  five  continents  other  than  North 
America,  with  a  constituency  of  at  least  25,- 
000,000.  Other  denominations,  such  as  the 
Methodists,  the  Congregationalists  and  the  Bap- 
tists are  adopting  similar  agencies,  in  order  to 
increase  their  efficiency  by  bringing  together  for 

[58] 


In  Christian  Countries 


consultation  the  members  of  the  same  family  of 
Churches,  irrespective  of  national  lines. 

As  distinguished  from  the  Alliances,  what  is 
known  as  Federation,  on  the  one  hand,  at  least 
usually  limits  itself  to  some  one  country  or  re- 
gion ;  but,  on  the  other,  it  includes  Churches  that 
are  of  various  families.  Perhaps  it  can  be  safely 
said  in  a  vague  way  that  the  name  is  meant  to 
designate  a  joining  of  forces  which  is  a  little 
closer  than  what  is  usually  spoken  of  as  Comity 
or  as  Co-operation ;  and  yet  as  not  in  any  degree 
involving  organic  union  of  denominations. 

Of  these  Federations  there  are  in  the  Chris- 
tian lands  so  many,  and  they  are  in  such  dififerent 
stages  of  development,  and  in  each  case  so  much 
modified  by  conditions,  that  any  attempt  to 
enumerate  them  is  likely  to  be  unsatisfactory. 
Geographically  considered  some  of  them  are  lim- 
ited to  a  part  of  a  country,  such  as  a  city,  or  a 
State ;  as  for  example  New  York,  or  London, 
or  Indiana.  Others  are  between  denominations 
of  the  same  family  within  the  bounds  of  a  na- 
tion. It  is  reported,  for  instance,  that  a  Federa- 
tion has  just  been  effected  in  the  United  States 
between  the  Evangelical  Association  and  the 
United  Evangelical  Church.  It  is  anticipated 
that  probably  the  immediate  outcome  of  the  con- 

[59] 


The  UnificaUon  of  the  Churches 


ferences  that  are  going  forward  between  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (North),  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (South),  and  the 
Protestant  Methodist  Church  will  be  a  federa- 
tion of  these  bodies.  In  England  this  kind  of  an 
association  is  receiving  consideration  among  the 
Nonconformists.  In  still  other  cases  the  Fed- 
eration embraces  the  most  of  the  Protestants  of 
an  entire  country,  as  in  France  where  the  three 
leading  bodies  are  for  certain  purposes  thus  as- 
sociated. 

By  far  the  greatest  of  these  organizations  is 
The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ 
in  America.  Its  plan  provided  at  the  outset  that 
thirty-three  different  denominations  mentioned 
by  name  should  be  admitted  to  representation, 
and  most  of  these  have  through  appropriate 
agencies  accepted,  and  several  others  have  since 
been  added ;  so  that  a  large  majority  of  Pro- 
testants in  the  United  States  are  included.  In 
the  plan  it  is  explicitly  stated  that  the  Council 
has  no  authority  to  draw  up  a  common  creed, 
or  in  any  way  to  limit  the  full  autonomy  of  the 
bodies  adhering  to  it ;  and  that  its  sole  function  is 
the  expression  of  its  counsel  and  the  recom- 
mendation of  a  course  of  action  in  matters  of 
common  interest  to  the  Churches,  local  Councils, 
[60] 


In  Christian  Countries 


and  individual  Christians.  Its  object  is  declared 
to  be,  to  express  the  fellowship  and  catholic 
unity  of  the  Christian  Church ;  to  bring  the 
Christian  bodies  of  America  into  united  service 
for  Christ  and  the  world;  to  encourage  devo- 
tional fellowship  and  mutual  counsel  concerning 
the  spiritual  life  and  religious  activities  of  the 
Churches ;  to  secure  a  larger  combined  influence 
for  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  all  matters  affect- 
ing the  moral  and  social  condition  of  the  people, 
so  as  to  promote  the  application  of  the  law  of 
Christ  in  every  relation  of  human  life ;  and  to 
assist  in  the  organization  of  local  branches  of 
the  Federal  Council  to  promote  its  aims  in  their 
communities.  The  meetings  of  this  body  are  held 
only  at  intervals  of  several  years,  and  of  neces- 
sity are  occupied  chiefly  with  the  discussion  of 
topics,  and  the  expression  of  the  common  con- 
viction in  resolutions.  In  igo8  some  of  the  sub- 
jects considered  were  Co-operation  in  Foreign 
and  in  Home  Missions,  the  Church  and  Modern 
Industry,  Divorce,  Sunday  Observance,  Temper- 
ance, International  Relations,  Family  Life,  the 
Press,  the  Immigration  Question,  Religious  In- 
struction in  Higher  Institutions  of  Learning, 
and  State  Federations.  In  the  interval  between 
the  meetings  an  Executive  Committee  seeks  to 
[61] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


promote  the  objects  which  have  received  the  ap- 
proval of  the  general  organization.  Although 
the  Council  can  do  no  more  than  consider  mat- 
ters within  the  limits  which  it  has  prescribed  for 
itself,  and  express  its  convictions  in  regard  to 
them,  it  is  able  to  make  its  influence  felt  ef¥ectu- 
ally  in  matters  that  concern  its  constituency. 
This  has  recently  been  illustrated  by  the  consid- 
erable part  its  Committee  has  had  in  helping  the 
Home  Mission  Boards  of  a  number  of  the  de- 
nominations to  agree  upon  a  plan  by  which  they 
shall  avoid  overlapping  in  certain  large  districts 
of  our  country. 

Comity,  Co-operation,  Alliance,  Federation, — 
they  are  all  steps  toward  a  unification  of  the 
Churches  in  Christian  lands,  and  as  such  as  well 
as  for  their  own  sake,  are  of  great  value.  It  may 
be,  as  is  so  often  said,  that  for  the  present,  be- 
yond these  the  denominations,  except  in  a  few 
cases,  are  not  prepared  to  go.  Nevertheless,  in 
recent  times  so  much  progress  has  been  made  in 
actual  organic  Union  that  this  calls  for  hearty 
thanksgiving,  and  encourages  its  advocates  to  take 
courage,  and  endeavor  to  push  forward  that  cause 
as  rapidly  as  may  be  expedient.  Between  1890 
and  1906,  according  to  the  Bulletin  issued  by  the 
national  government,  only  seven  or  eight  small 
[62] 


In  Christian  Countries 


Protestant  denominations  have  disappeared  in 
the  United  States.  Only  five  were  consolidated 
with  other  bodies,  and  these  were  of  a  minor 
grade.  If  we  were  to  look  as  these  meagre 
figures,  and  if  along  with  these  we  were  to  in- 
clude in  our  view  the  new  sects  that  have  arisen 
and  have  swollen  the  net  total  beyond  that  of 
1890,  we  might,  did  we  not  take  into  considera- 
tion other  facts,  be  tempted  to  infer  that  no  pro- 
gress is  making  toward  union.  That,  however, 
would  be  a  serious  mistake.  Negatively  it  is 
significant  that  no  division  has  occurred  in  any 
large  denomination  during  the  period  covered  by 
the  Bulletin.  In  fact,  since  the  civil  war,  fifty 
years  ago,  there  has  been  none.  This  has  not 
been  because  no  burning  questions  have  arisen, 
with  strong  convictions  on  the  part  of  earnest 
men  and  women  on  opposite  sides;  but  because 
the  strain  that  once  would  have  rent  a  denomi- 
nation in  twain  has  had  no  such  result.  It  is 
not  too  late  to  stretch  to  the  breaking  point  the 
tic  that  binds  in  outward  ecclesiastical  unity ; 
but  it  requires  more  to  do  this  now  than  it  did 
less  than  a  century  ago. 

Within  the  last  fifty  years  there  have  been 
several  unions  of  Protestant  religious  bodies, 
especially  in  the  English-speaking  world,  and 

[63] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


these  in  their  aggregate  of  membership  have 
been  so  large  as  not  merely  to  counterbalance  all 
the  members  that  constitute  the  entirely  new  or- 
ganizations that  have  appeared,  but  also  to  leave 
them  in  an  insignificant  minority.  Some  of  the 
most  notable  have  been  within  the  Presbyterian 
family,  and  are  as  follows,  in  the  order  of  time : 
— 1858,  The  United  Presbyterian  Church  of 
North  America,  out  of  the  Associate  and  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Churches ;  1869,  The  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
out  of  the  "Old"  and  the  "New"  School  Pres- 
byterian Churches;  1875,  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Canada,  out  of  several  distinct  Pres- 
byterian bodies;  1876,  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England,  out  of  the  body  previously  bearing 
that  name,  and  the  United  Presbyterian  Churches 
of  England ;  1900,  the  United  Free  Church  of 
Scotland,  out  of  the  Free,  and  the  United  Pres- 
byterian Churches  of  that  country;  1901,  the 
Australian  Presbyterian  Church,  out  of  six 
bodies  which  previously  had  existed,  one  each 
in  the  respective  colonies  of  that  continent  and 
Tasmania;  1901,  the  New  Zealand  Presbyterian 
Church,  out  of  the  two  Presbyterian  bodies  pre- 
viously formed  respectively  in  the  North  and  in 
the  South  Island;  and,  1907,  the  Cumberland 

[64] 


In  Christian  Countries 


Presbyterian  Church  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  It  is 
very  significant  that  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  body  last  named  has  for  several  years  per- 
petuated a  special  Committee,  whose  main  func- 
tion seems  to  be  to  meet  at  least  half  way  all  ad- 
vances made  by  kindred  Churches  toward  such 
closer  relations  as  their  title  indicates.  Of  the 
diligence  with  which  this  Committee  is  cultivat- 
ing its  field,  and  of  the  readiness  of  the  Church 
to  which  it  belongs  to  move  forward  toward  the 
unification  of  the  denominations,  the  General 
Assembly  of  191 1  gave  abundant  evidence. 
Measures  of  a  general  character  were  reported 
and  adopted  looking  to  the  bringing  Christians 
of  every  name  together  in  closer  fellowship  and 
in  unity  of  purpose,  and  to  securing  more  com- 
plete co-operation  in  social  service  and  evangeli- 
zation. Specific  action  also  was  taken  in  favor 
of  participation  in  the  World  Conference  on 
Faith  and  Order  proposed  by  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Convention.  A  hand  was  stretched 
out  to  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  and  their  freshly 
appointed  Commission  on  Christian  Union.  The 
United  Presbyterians  were  again  met  more  than 
half  way  and  assured  of  a  readiness  for  closer 
relations,  even  to  the  extent  of  organic  union. 

[65] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


^lost  remarkable  of  all  these  measures  was  the 
adoption  of  a  plan  by  which  the  way  may  be 
judiciously  prepared  for  uniting  the  (German) 
Reformed  Church  with  the  Presbyterian.  Such 
an  expression  of  the  attitude  of  the  great  Church 
for  which  the  General  Assembly  speaks  is  enor- 
mously significant  of  the  direction  in  which  the 
current  is  running,  and  of  its  force. 

In  no  other  of  the  Protestant  families  has  so 
much  progress  toward  union  of  the  branches 
been  made  as  among  the  Presbyterians.  Still 
something  has  been  achieved  in  recent  times. 
For  instance,  more  than  fifty  years  ago  all  the 
Wesleyan  Methodists  of  New  Zealand  and  Aus- 
tralia had  already  joined  in  a  single  Confer- 
ence; in  1873  the  Methodists  of  Tasmania  and 
the  South  Sea  Islands  were  united  with  these; 
and  by  1902  other  English  Methodists  were  in- 
cluded ;  so  that  there  has  since  this  latter  date 
been  a  great  Australasian  Methodist  Church ; 
though  solely  for  convenience  the  New  Zealand 
membership  are  about  to  separate.  In  1874,  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  of  Canada  united 
with  the  New  Connection;  and  in  1883,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal,  the  Primitive  Methodist, 
and  the  Bible  Christian  Church  also  came  in; 
and  there  is  now  a  single  Methodist  organization 
[66] 


In  Christian  Countries 

for  all  of  that  Dominion.  Among  denomina- 
tions whose  polity  is  congregational,  each  local 
organization  being  theoretically  independent, 
there  is  not  much  opportunity  for  organic  one- 
ness. On  the  practical  side,  however,  union  is 
effected  by  meeting  together  in  Associations  for 
conference,  and  by  the  support  of  common 
agencies.  In  igo8,  for  instance,  a  basis  of  this 
kind  was  agreed  upon  by  a  joint  committee  rep- 
resenting the  Northern  Baptists  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Free  Baptists ;  and  this  has  since 
been  so  widely  approved  that  it  is  held  to  be 
practically  in  operation  at  home  and  on  mission 
fields.  Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that  the  conven- 
tions in  which  the  Baptists  of  North  America 
meet,  and  that  the  World's  Baptist  Convention 
will  bring  about  other  such  results? 

Efforts  looking  to  union  have  been  initiated 
but  not  yet  accomplished,  among  a  number  of 
Protestant  bodies.  Down  in  Australia  negotia- 
tions have  for  several  years  been  progressing  be- 
tween the  Methodists,  the  Presbyterians,  the 
Congregationalists,  and  what  is  there  known  as 
the  Church  of  England  (Episcopalian)  ;  and 
some  time  ago  a  basis  was  reported  which  seem- 
ed to  be  satisfactory  to  a  large  portion  of  the 
ministers  and  people.     For  the  present,  the 

[67] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


movement  is  partly  halted.  In  New  Zealand  ne- 
gotiations are  progressing  between  the  Wesleyan 
and  the  Primitive  Methodists.  In  South  Africa 
similar  negotiations  have  for  several  years  been 
conducted  between  the  Wesleyans,  the  Baptists, 
the  Presbyterians,  and  the  Congregationalists ; 
but  as  yet  only  progress  is  reported.  In  the  United 
States  about  the  same  thing  is  to  be  said  of  the 
effort  to  bring  together  Congregationalists, 
United  Brethren,  and  Protestant  Methodists. 
Among  many  people  there  is  a  hope  that  the 
outcome  of  the  conferences  now  going  forward 
between  representatives  of  the  Methodists  North 
and  Methodists  South  and  Protestant  Methodists 
may  result  not  merely  in  federation  but  in  ulti- 
mate union.  In  Scotland  Committees  of  the 
United  Free  Church  and  the  Established  Church 
have  been  conferring  as  to  union,  but  as  yet  they 
seem  to  have  made  little  headway.  Last  year  a 
couple  of  dozen  members  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  met  in  New  York  and  formed  what 
they  call  "The  Christian  Unity  Foundation," 
whose  ultimate  purpose  is  declared  to  be  "the 
union  of  the  Christians  of  all  the  world,  Protest- 
ant, Eastern,  Roman  Catholic,  everybody,  every- 
where." Whether  this  new-born  infant  will 
survive,  and  if  so  what  it  will  undertake, 
[68] 


In  Christian  Countries 


and  how  it  will  pursue  its  object  remain 
to  be  seen.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  General 
Convention  at  its  last  meeting-  adopted  a  resolu- 
tion looking  to  the  calling  of  a  Convention,  some- 
what after  the  model  of  the  World's  Missionary 
Conference,  to  consult  as  to  Christian  unity ; 
which  usually  in  the  minds  of  the  leaders  in  that 
body  means  among  other  elements  Church  unity. 
The  matter  was  given  into  the  hands  of  a  com- 
mittee of  seven  bishops  and  seven  laymen,  to  be 
carried  into  execution  as  seems  best  to  them. 
Since  then  a  conference  has  been  informally  held 
by  this  Committee  with  representatives  of  other 
Protestant  organizations,  and  with  such  encour- 
agement that  consultations  on  a  larger  scale  are 
planned  to  follow.  This  is  by  far  the  most  am- 
bitious scheme  now  launched  to  promote  the 
union  of  the  Churches;  and  as  such  it  is  certain 
to  meet  with  many  serious  hindrances.  But  it 
will  render  valuable  service  even  if  it  accom- 
plishes no  more  than  to  indicate  the  obstacles 
that  for  the  present  seem  to  block  the  way,  and 
to  give  some  influential  expression  to  the  senti- 
ment everywhere  increasing  against  the  preva- 
lent divisions  except  as  necessitated  by  radical 
differences  of  faith  and  practice.  Perhaps  the 
most  hopeful  of  all  these  unaccomplished  move- 

[69] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


ments  is  in  Canada,  where  for  seven  or  eight 
years  negotiations  have  been  going  forward  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian,  the  Methodist  and  the 
Congregational  bodies.  The  committees  in 
charge  have  agreed  upon  a  basis  of  union  which 
includes  doctrine  and  polity ;  and  steps  have  been 
taken  to  submit  this  for  approval  by  the  several 
organizations  concerned,  and  with  a  fair  pros- 
pect of  an  affirmative  response. 


I  70] 


V 


ON  MISSION  FIELDS 


HE  progress  on  mission  fields  consists  in 


part  of  mere  advances  toward  unifica- 


tion.  Of  these  one  which  has  especially 
arrested  attention  is  the  Conferences  which  have 
been  held.  For  almost  two  decades  representa- 
tives of  the  Foreign  Mission  Boards  of  America 
have  at  stated  times  met  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
sultation about  the  work  with  which  they  are  en- 
trusted. Through  this  common  agency,  among 
other  matters  of  importance,  agreement  is  reach- 
ed concerning  such  questions  as  the  occupation 
of  territory  so  as  not  to  waste  men  and  means  by 
overlapping  on  the  same  fields,  and  as  the  joining 
of  forces  in  schools,  hospitals,  and  the  press.  In 
this  way,  from  home  there  goes  out  an  influence 
which,  though  it  falls  short  of  eliminating  de- 
nominationalism  from  missionary  territory,  yet 
helps  toward  keeping  it  in  such  subordination  as 
not  to  be  a  hindrance  to  the  work  of  evangeliza- 
tion, and  toward  avoiding  friction  and  waste. 
This  conference  also  because  of  its  comprehen- 
sive membership  is  able  to  do  much  to  assist  and 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


to  utilize  such  undenominational  organizations 
as  the  Student  V'olunteer  Movement,  the  Foreign 
]\Iissionary  Department  of  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association,  the  Young  People's  Mis- 
sionary Movement,  and  the  Laymen's  Mission- 
ary Movement. 

On  most  of  the  mission  fields  besides  the  con- 
ferences that  are  local  and  composed  of  fewer 
members,  others  that  are  national  or  interna- 
tional in  their  territory  and  large  in  numbers  as- 
semble from  time  to  time.  Among  the  most  con- 
spicuous of  these  are  the  Conferences  respec- 
tively of  China,  Japan,  India,  the  Turkish  Em- 
pire, South  Africa,  and  South  Central  Africa. 
There  is  a  separate  Conference  for  South  India; 
and  there  is  also  one  for  Manchuria.  In  all  of 
these  nearly  every  evangelical  Mission  for  the 
territory  embraced  is  represented.  There  are 
others  organized  on  a  less  general  basis.  For 
example  two  Conferences  of  missionaries  among 
the  Moslems  have  met, — one  at  Cairo,  and  an- 
other at  Lucknow.  There  is  a  Conference  of 
Lutherans  working  in  India;  and  one  respec- 
tively of  Scandinavians,  and  of  Germans  in 
China.  Recently  a  great  gathering  of  Indo- 
Christians  assembled  at  Madras.  In  such  meet- 
ings there  is  a  comparison  of  methods  and  meas- 

[72] 


On  Mission  Fields 


ures ;  and  frequently  in  them  originate  undertak- 
ings of  the  very  first  importance  to  the  work  of 
missions.  For  instance,  in  the  first  Conference 
at  Shanghai  steps  were  taken  which  have  eventu- 
ated in  the  accomphshment  of  the  gigantic  un- 
dertaking of  a  thorough  revision  of  the  Bible  in 
Chinese.  Ahnost  an  exactly  similar  work  of 
Bible  revision  was  brought  about  in  Japan  by 
the  first  Conference  in  that  country.  Through 
these  bodies  on  several  territories  differences  be- 
tween the  respective  missions  are  settled  by  the 
agency  of  Arbitration  committees.  One  of  the 
most  remarkable  of  these  undenominational  or- 
ganizations, embracing  unevangelized  as  well  as 
Christian  lands,  is  the  World's  Christian  Student 
Convention,  a  meeting  of  which  was  recently 
held  at  Constantinople  with  an  attendance  mount- 
ing up  into  the  hundreds  and  corning  from  many 
parts  of  the  earth.  A  similar  Convention  for 
South  America  met  this  year  near  Montevideo. 

By  far  the  greatest  of  such  assemblies  is  the 
World  Missionary  Conference  which  was  held 
at  Edinburgh  in  1910.  At  present,  according  to 
the  highest  estimate,  there  are  scattered  over  the 
various  unevangelized  regions  of  the  earth  about 
twenty  thousand  foreign  missionaries,  men  and 
women ;  coming  in  the  proportion  approximately 

[73] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


of  about  4.5  from  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
3.75  from  America,  and  1.75  from  continental 
Europe  and  elsewhere.  There  are  also  in  round 
numbers  about  five  thousand  ordained  natives 
and  one  hundred  thousand  native  helpers.  From 
most  of  these,  representatives  attended  the  Edin- 
burgh Conference,  and  v^^ith  them  were  joined  a 
great  multitude  of  ministers  and  laymen  from 
Christian  lands.  It  has  frequently  been  said 
that  this  was  the  most  remarkable  meeting  ever 
held ;  and  probably  the  claim  cannot  be  gainsaid. 
As  to  results,  among  others,  it  has  done  far 
more  than  to  show  that  beneath  all  the  divisions 
of  Protestantism  there  is  a  unity  as  to  essentials ; 
it  has  put  a  new  stimulus  in  the  movements  that 
tend  wisely  to  bring  them  closer  together  in  ex- 
ternals and  non-essentials,  and  has  provided 
agencies  by  which  to  give  them  practical  ef- 
ficiency. 

On  the  mission  fields  Comity  usually  obtains 
in  a  large  degree.  Proselytism  of  converts  is 
generally  discouraged  by  the  respective  repre- 
sentatives of  the  denominations ;  and  it  is  re- 
garded as  carrying  with  it  more  or  less  of  oppro- 
brium when  it  does  occur.  Overlapping  of  labor 
in  the  same  territory  is,  as  a  rule,  avoided.  Sta- 
tions established  by  different  Boards  even  in  the 

[74] 


On  Mission  Fields 


same  city  usually  are  so  conducted  as  to  avoid 
that  mistake.  Little  is  said  in  speech  or  in  print 
concerning  matters  of  doctrine  or  polity  over 
which  denominations  in  Christian  lands  are  di- 
vided; the  great  essentials  of  Christianity  are 
kept  so  prominent  as  to  leave  small  place  for  the 
non-essentials.  Usually  the  measure  and  the 
manner  of  this  comity  are  left  to  the  individual 
missionaries  and  churches ;  but  not  infrequently 
it  is  stimulated  and  guided  by  local  or  general 
Associations.  One  of  the  most  striking  examples 
of  it  as  practiced  on  a  comprehensive  and  for- 
mally declared  plan  is  found  in  the  Philippines. 
Soon  after  mission  work  was  begun  there  by 
Protestants,  an  Evangelical  Union  was  organ- 
ized, for  the  purpose  of  securing  effectiveness  in 
the  common  work  of  evangelization ;  and  this 
has  ever  since  been  in  operation,  and  it  includes 
in  its  membership  substantially  all  the  Missions. 
The  constitution  binds  its  adherents  to  recognize 
and  respect  the  discipline,  polity,  and  doctrine 
of  the  various  denominations  represented;  to 
receive  members  from  the  respective  churches 
only  on  certificate;  not  to  employ  each  other's 
workers  without  mutual  agreement ;  to  strive 
to  avoid  duplication  of  such  agencies  as  medical, 
educational,  and  publishing,  on  the  same  fields; 

[75] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


and  in  case  of  question  as  to  the  occupation  of 
any  particular  territory,  to  submit  the  matter  to 
the  decision  of  the  Executive  Committee,  whose 
decision  if  approved  by  the  home  Boards,  shall 
control. 

On  mission  fields  Co-operation  is  practiced  in 
so  many  ways,  so  widely  and  so  variously  accord- 
ing to  local  conditions,  that  no  exhaustive  enum- 
eration of  cases  can  here  be  attempted.  Most 
frequently  it  has  to  do  with  such  agencies  as 
schools,  hospitals  and  publication.  In  China,  for 
example,  the  English  Baptists  join  with  the 
Presbyterians  in  the  support  of  the  Shantung 
Christian  University  with  its  three  colleges  re- 
spectively of  Arts,  Medicine,  and  Theology;  and 
some  others  are  disposed  to  swell  the  ranks.  The 
Pekin  scheme  involves  a  still  broader  combina- 
tion, including  American  Congregationalists,  rep- 
resentatives of  the  London  Missionary  Society. 
Presbyterians,  and  Methodists.  The  Yale  Mis- 
sion has  looked  toward  the  building  up  of  a 
Christian  Institution  of  higher  learning  for  all 
denominations,  and  other  organizations  have 
similar  aims  in  view.  At  Nanking  the  Method- 
ists, Disciples,  and  the  Presbyterians  North  and 
South  maintain  a  Bible  Training  School.  Out  in 
Western  China  the  Missions  have  planned  not 

[76] 


On  Mission  Fields 


only  for  co-operation  in  schools,  medicine  and 
publication,  but  also  to  have  a  common  hymn 
book  and  one  magazine.  In  Ceylon  and  India 
joining  of  hands  in  such  agencies  is  already  ef- 
fected. Japan  has  had  for  some  time  "The 
Standing  Committee  of  the  Co-operating  Chris- 
tian Missions,"  to  oversee  work  in  which  all 
join.  As  to  all  this,  Korea  occupies  a  position 
of  great  forwardness.  A  veteran  missionary 
writes : — "We  have  union  in  tract  work,  union  in 
translating  the  Scriptures,  a  union  hymn  book, 
union  Sunday  School  lessons,  a  union  English 
paper,  union  schools,  a  union  college  and  normal 
schools,  a  union  school  for  girls  and  women." 

Of  Alliances  and  Federations  formally  so  des- 
ignated and  of  associations  so  near  akin  to  them 
that  they  may  be  classified  in  the  same  list  there 
are  many  on  the  mission  fields,  and  the  tendency 
is  toward  a  rapid  increase.  The  Evangelical  Al- 
liance has  branches  in  China,  India,  Persia, 
Syria,  Turkey,  South  Africa,  and  perhaps  in 
other  non-Christian  lands.  In  Japan  one  or 
more  of  the  existing  associations  is  about  to  be 
transformed  into  a  Federation.  In  China  there 
is  a  Federal  Council,  with  subordinate  Councils 
in  some  of  the  provinces.  In  India  a  Presby- 
terian Alliance  has  been  in  existence  for  years, 

[77] 


Ilie  Unification  of  the  Churches 


and  has  been  especially  sennceable  in  bringing 
together  for  consultation  the  representatives  of  a 
dozen  denominations  operating  on  that  field,  and 
iu  promoting  the  Unions  which  are  now  effected. 
A  Federation  also  seems  to  be  assured.  There  is 
in  that  countr}-  a  National  Missionary'  Society, 
the  members  of  which  consist  of  natives,  and  the 
object  of  which  is  to  draw  out  the  activities  of 
the  membership  of  the  Churches  of  various  sorts, 
in  the  work  of  evangelization.  As  a  rule  the 
missionaries  favor  these  organizations  as  in 
themselves  wholesome  and  stimulating.  Some 
are  content  to  see  in  them  enough  to  satisfy  the 
need  on  these  fields  for  a  closer  joining  of  forces, 
without  incurring  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of 
union.  Others  look  beycmd  this  and  hail  these 
associations  as  forerunners  of  the  elimination  of 
denominational  di\-isions,  and  the  speedy  coming 
together  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians  in  each 
of  these  lands  as  national  Churches. 

On  mission  fields  Comity  and  Co-operation 
prevail  perhaps  m.ore  widely  and  thoroughly  than 
is  generally  known  in  Christian  lands.  More  and 
more  out  there  friction  and  waste  through  de- 
nominationalism  are  disappearing,  and  they 
promise  soon  to  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  To 
promote  this  result  special  means  were  instituted 

[78] 


On  Mission  Fields 


by  the  Edinburgh  Conference.  But  on  the  other 
hand  among  some  ardent  friends  of  missions  at 
home  a  rather  exaggerated  conception  is  cur- 
rent as  to  the  extent  to  which  union  has  there 
been  effected.  As  yet  union  has  been  almost  en- 
tirely within  the  limits  of  ecclesiastical  families, 
such  as  the  Presbyterian;  and  even  where  this 
has  occurred  it  has  not  always  been  possible  to 
bring  together  all  the  branches.  To  some  extent 
this  state  of  things  is  due  to  restraint  from  the 
home  land  of  the  missionaries.  Denominations 
are  apt  tc  be  a  little  reluctant  and  slow  in  allow- 
ing their  representatives  on  foreign  fields  to 
transfer  their  names  and  the  fruits  of  their  la- 
bors to  the  new  ecclesiastical  bodies,  though  suc- 
cess in  evangelization  must  eventually  bring  these 
in  its  train.  As  to  this  some  of  the  home 
Churches  have  been  wiser  than  others.  For  in- 
stance, years  ago  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  adopted  a  plan  by 
which  its  ordained  missionaries  could  be  encour- 
aged to  join  the  new  independent  Churches  and 
yet  to  do  this  without  being  treated  as  if  they 
had  thereby  severed  themselves  from  all  official 
recognition  by  the  home  Church.  Their  names 
are  published  annually  in  a  separate  list  in  the 
Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  they  can 

[79] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


at  will  on  their  return  permanently  from  mission 
work  on  foreign  fields  resume  their  places  in 
their  Presb}-teries. 

The  progress  which  is  making  toward  inde- 
pendent Churches  out  there  is  due  to  two  lead- 
ing influences.  One  is  that  of  the  missionaries. 
They  see  the  folly  of  perpetuating  ecclesiastical 
divisions  which  have  had  their  origin  in  condi- 
tions peculiar  to  other  times  and  other  countries. 
To  a  ver\^  large  degree  they  seek  to  ignore  in 
their  ministrj^  the  questions  which  lie  back  of 
these  divisions  and  to  keep  in  full  view  only  the 
essentials  as  to  which  there  is  agreement.  Why 
separate  the  native  Christians  by  ecclesiastical 
lines  which  in  almost  ever^-thing  besides  outward 
organization  is  put  aside  as  valueless  or  worse? 
Xot  every  missionary  assxunes  this  attitude,  but 
the  exceptions  tend  all  the  while  to  decrease  in 
number.  The  other  influence  co-operating  with 
this  comes  from  the  native  Christians.  Few  of 
them  imderstand  the  reasons  which  have  led  to 
the  various  denominational  differentiations  in 
Christian  lands,  and  fewer  still  take  any  interest 
in  the  questions  involved.  In  order  to  under- 
stand their  attitude  it  is  also  to  be  borne  in 
mind  that  Christianity  in  each  country'  has  its 
own  peculiar  atmosphere  and  enAnronment,  and 

[8o] 


On  Mission  Fields 


consequently  needs  its  own  distinctive  adjust- 
ments. The  gospel  at  the  same  time  awakens 
the  converts  to  a  consciousness  of  their  own 
corresponding  responsibilities  and  duties ;  and  it 
therefore  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  the  na- 
tive Christians  should  sooner  or  later  desire  to 
manage  their  ecclesiastical  affairs  according  to 
ideas  more  or  less  different  from  those  of  Amer- 
ica or  of  Europe.  Of  course  they  may  inaugur- 
ate movements  toward  this  goal,  before  they  are 
competent  wisely  to  direct.  Serious  risks  to  the 
common  cause  of  Christianity  are  sure  to  be  en- 
countered. Still  the  reasons  for  organizing  these 
new  Churches  are  so  solid  and  sound,  and  at 
any  rate  the  movement  is  making  such  headway 
that  to  oppose  is  to  place  one's  self  in  the  way 
of  the  inevitable. 

The  new  Churches  which  have  been  formed 
on  foreign  mission  fields  all  limit  themselves  by 
national  lines.  They  do  this  because  of  political 
institutions,  language,  race,  and  like  peculiari- 
ties. They  do  not  intend  thus  to  isolate  them- 
selves from  the  other  evangelical  Churches  of 
the  world  at  large,  but  only  to  adjust  themselves 
to  the  conditions  under  which  they  exist.  To 
this,  according  to  Protestantism  there  is  no  ob- 
jection; in  fact,  it  cannot  be  avoided.  If,  one 
[8r] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


day  under  some  form  of  federation,  or  of  still 
closer  union,  the  lines  of  nationalism  now  separ- 
ating the  branches  of  the  visible  Church  shall  be- 
come far  less  in  evidence,  there  is  everj'  reason 
to  anticipate  that  these  new  organizations  will 
heartily  approve  and  co-operate. 

On  the  mission  fields,  just  as  at  home,  the 
Presbyterians  are  foremost  in  the  formation  of 
new  Churches  out  of  bodies  previously  independ- 
ent of  each  other  but  holding  to  that  general  polity 
and  belief.  The  following  are  the  most  notable 
instances : — The  Church  of  Christ  in  Japan,  con- 
stituted out  of  five  different  Missions ;  in  Korea, 
one  native  Presbyterian  Church,  including  all 
Presbyterians ;  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
China  which  embraces  the  Missions  of  eight  dif- 
ferent bodies,  of  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  Canada, 
and  the  United  States,  and  which  extends  a 
standing  invitation  to  all  other  Churches  in 
China,  holding  to  the  consensus  of  ♦^he  Reformed 
faith,  to  unite  with  it;  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  India,  composed  of  six  bodies — Presbyterian, 
Reformed,  and  Calvinistic  Methodist ;  the  Pres- 
bj-terian  Church  of  South  Africa,  formed  from 
several  organizations  previously  operating  inde- 
pendently on  that  field ;  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Brazil,  uniting  the  Missions  of  the  "North- 
[82] 


On  Mission  Fields 


ern"  and  the  "Southern"  Presbyterian  Churches ; 
the  Synod  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Mexico 
which  is  an  independent  body,  and  includes  all 
Presbyterians ;  and  the  United  Synod  of  the  New 
Hebrides,  with  a  similar  content. 

Presbyterians,  however,  are  merely  in  the  lead 
in  this  matter.  In  Japan  there  is  a  Methodist 
Church  which  embraces  all  the  adherents  of  that 
system.  In  Japan  the  adherents  of  the  Church 
of  England  are  also  practically  united  in  one 
body.  Negotiations  looking  to  similar  organiza- 
tion of  independent  native  Churches  out  of  the 
Missions  of  the  same  family  but  of  different 
branches  are  more  or  less  advanced  in  other 
lands.  Of  course,  in  the  case  of  the  Congrega- 
tional and  the  Baptist  missions,  because  of  their 
polity  no  formal  union  into  a  single  ecclesiastical 
body  is  practicable ;  but  short  of  this  it  is  pos- 
sible for  them  to  join  in  Associations  and  in  other 
ways,  and  they  are  falling  in  with  the  prevailing 
tendency. 

There  is  a  still  further  step  that  is  possible. 
This  consists  in  disregarding  family  ecclesiastical 
lines;  and  in  South  India  that  step  has  been 
taken.  On  account  of  linguistic,  geographic,  and 
other  reasons,  the  Presbyterians  and  the  Re- 
formed of  that  region  have  withdrawn  from  the 

[83] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


Presbyterian  Church  of  India,  already  men- 
tioned, and  have  joined  with  the  Congregational- 
ists  in  the  formation  of  a  new  ecclesiastical  body 
for  South  India,  on  the  basis  of  a  statement  of 
doctrine  and  polity  comprehensive  and  flexible 
enough  to  include  them  all.  In  other  mission 
lands  movements  have  been  started  which  dis- 
tinctly look  in  the  same  direction.  For  example, 
in  British  East  Africa,  not  long  ago,  forty-five 
missionaries  held  a  conference  for  the  considera- 
tion of  union  in  a  single  body.  A  definite  plan 
was  not  adopted ;  but  it  is  highly  significant,  that 
for  the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose,  Quakers 
expressed  a  willingness  to  use  the  sacraments, 
Presbyterians  to  serve  under  a  bishop,  and  all  to 
use  both  a  liturgy  and  free  prayer.  Among  the 
native  Christians  in  various  countries  the  tend- 
ency to  come  together,  irrespective  of  the  de- 
nominationalism  which  hitherto  has  obtained 
among  them,  in  one  independent  Church  is  con- 
stantly becoming  stronger,  and  by  many  intelli- 
gent missionaries  this  consummation  is  regarded 
as  inevitable  and  not  far  distant  in  time. 


[84] 


VI 


AN  OUTLOOK 


XE  of  the  principal  obstacles  at  present 


in  the  way  of  any  very  comprehensive 


unification  of  the  Churches  is  the  dispo- 
sition of  some  of  the  respective  families  to  in- 
sist upon  the  essential  nature  of  the  beliefs  and 
practices  by  which  they  are  distinguished.  So 
long,  for  instance,  as  the  "historic  episcopate"  is 
declared  by  a  large  and  influential  section  of 
Protestant  Christians  to  be  an  ecclesiastical  sine- 
qua-non,  there  must  continue  to  be  at  least  two 
great  Protestant  denominations.  It  is  equally  true 
that  so  long  as  another  large  and  influential  sec- 
tion hold  that  there  is  only  one  method  of  valid 
baptism,  another  differentiation  must  be  per- 
petuated. In  like  manner  within  the  respective 
families,  so  long  as  any  branch  regards  its  own 
peculiar  creed  or  practice  to  be  binding  on  con- 
science, lesser  divisions  of  Churches  by  de- 
nominational lines  must  be  continued.  Happily 
there  is  a  constantly  increasing  tendency  on  the 
part  of  all  the  followers  of  Christ  to  see  that 
what  does  not  alienate  men  from  Him  may  well 


[85] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


be  questioned  if  set  up  as  a  sufficient  justifica- 
tion for  separation  into  distinct  Churches. 

Another  obstacle  is  the  inertia  of  the  Churches. 
Most  of  the  denominations  have  a  great  history, 
and  are  justly  proud  of  what  they  have  suffered 
and  achieved.  Some  of  them  are  large  in  mem- 
bership, and  have  immense  wealth  and  influence ; 
and  they  are  characterized  by  a  steady  growth. 
Under  such  conditions  it  is  not  strange  that  by  a 
good  many  both  of  the  ministry  and  the  laity 
the  response  to  arguments  and  appeals  in  favor 
of  unification  is  feeble.  They  point  to  the  deeper 
unity  which  subsists  along  with  denominational- 
ism;  and  to  the  external  recognition  and  utiliza- 
tion of  this  unity  by  such  means  as  Comity,  Co- 
operation, Alliance  and  Federation.  We  have 
the  essence  already  they  say;  why  not  be  content 
with  it?  Why  disturb  our  church  life  and  our 
ecclesiastical  machinery  by  a  pursuit  after  some- 
thing which  is  not  vital?  Thus,  mere  inertia, 
rather  than  positive  opposition  hinders  progress 
toward  unification. 

The  practical  difficulties  which  can  always  be 
more  or  less  seen  as  necessary  to  be  met  in  all 
particular  cases  of  proposed  unification  are  a 
powerful  deterrent  influence.  These  in  a  ma- 
jority of  instances  at  first  seem  so  great  that  to 
[86] 


An  Outlook 


be  able  to  overcome  them  is  apparently  almost 
hopeless.  Sacrifices  of  sentiments,  habits,  and 
personal  interests  are  involved.  Were  the  Meth- 
odists, the  Presbyterians,  and  the  Congregation- 
alists  to  unite,  what  a  tremendous  amount  of  re- 
adjustment would  this  necessitate  in  the  general 
management  of  the  afi"airs  of  these  ecclesiastical 
organizations !  As  to  the  individual  congrega- 
tions and  their  places  of  worship,  how  difficult 
would  it  be  to  bring  about  the  better  conditions 
for  the  sake  of  which  the  three  denominations 
joined  in  one !  We  could  count  upon  the  minis- 
ters and  the  membership  if  convinced  of  the  right- 
eousness and  wisdom  of  the  step,  rising  to  the 
measure  of  unselfish  devotion  required ;  but  until 
duty  clearly  is  seen,  the  prospect  of  the  practical 
difficulties  must  operate  as  a  powerful  deterrent. 

Notwithstanding  these  obstacles,  and  many 
others  besides,  an  advance  has  been  made  that  is 
immensely  encouraging;  and  progress  tends  each 
year  to  become  more  rapid  and  hopeful.  In  es- 
timating this,  perhaps  the  chief  place  ought  to  be 
given  to  the  fact  that  the  unification  of  the 
Churches  is  now  commanding  such  large  and 
thoughtful  attention..  It  unquestionably  has  the 
ear  of  the  Christian  public  as  at  no  previous  time 
in  the  modern  history  of  Protestantism.  Great 

[87] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


ecclesiastical  assemblies,  denominational,  and  also 
undenominational,  consider  and  take  action  con- 
cerning it.  Plans  of  immense  scope  are  laid  by 
which  it  is  hoped  to  forward  the  movement.  Big 
contributions  of  money  are  volunteered  in  order 
to  meet  expected  expenses.  In  the  public  press 
the  subject  is  discussed  frequently,  and  often 
with  fullness  and  ability.  On  many  sides  it  is 
recognized  as  a  living,  burning,  imperative  ques- 
tion of  tremendous  importance.  A  hearing  of 
this  sort  is  just  what  the  cause  has  hitherto 
lacked  and  has  most  needed. 

The  positive  steps  already  taken  toward  this 
goal  are  many  and  long,  both  in  Christian  lands 
and  on  foreign  fields,  though  as  yet  the  full 
realization  of  what  is  possible  is  but  dimly  seen 
and  is  inadequately  appreciated.  The  onward 
march  is  slow,  and  frequently  there  are  halts  and 
diversions  on  the  way ;  yet  on  the  whole  it  is  not 
stayed.  What  has  been  accomplished  ought  to 
be  a  mighty  stimulus  to  proceed  farther  as  rap- 
idly and  as  extensively  as  in  wisdom  the  condi- 
tions permit.  Why  perpetuate  a  day  longer  than 
the  circumstances  may  clearly  demand,  on  such  a 
field,  for  instance  as  China,  a  Presbyterian,  a 
Methodist,  a  Congregational  denomination,  and 
others  whose  distinctive  foreign  names  cannot 
[88] 


An  Outlook 


be  satisfactorily  translated  into  the  language, 
and  the  difference  between  whose  American  or 
English  creeds  have  there  been  sunk  out  of 
sight?  There,  however,  to-day  they  still  are,  in 
the  same  province,  and  even  in  the  same  cities. 
Division  of  territory  so  as  not  to  overlap  in 
labors,  co-operation  in  schools,  hospitals,  publi- 
cation, consultations  in  immense  conferences, 
and  the  like,  are  good  so  far  as  they  go,  and  de- 
serve to  be  fostered ;  but  when  missionaries 
themselves  studiously  avoid  denominationalism 
in  their  teachings,  and  the  native  Christians  have 
no  disposition  to  perpetuate  it  among  themselves, 
the  best  thing  for  the  future  to  do  with  it  is  to 
eliminate  it  entirely  just  so  soon  as  this  can  be 
safely  accomplished. 

Here  in  tlie  United  States  there  is  great  reason 
to  thank  God  because  of  what  has  been  achieved. 
But  why  call  a  halt  at  the  present  stage  of  the 
movement?  Why,  for  instance,  should  there  be 
twelve  distinct  bodies  of  Presbyterians  in  this 
country?  It  may  be  easy  to  find  members  of 
each  branch  of  this  family  who  will  try  to  justify 
the  independent  existence  of  their  own  denom- 
ination ;  but  it  would  be  hard  indeed  to  find  one 
who  would  also  try  to  justify  the  other  eleven. 
There  are  not  very  many  people  of  the  Presby- 

[89] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


terian  family  who  will  not  admit  that  were  these 
various  branches  not  already  in  existence,  the 
matters  which  separate  them  would  by  them- 
selves in  each  case  be  considered  of  too  small  im- 
portance to  warrant  division  into  separate 
Churches  because  of  them.  What  has  just  been 
said  of  Presbyterians  is  equally  true  of  the  other 
Protestant  families, — the  fourteen  kinds  of 
Methodists,  the  sixteen  kinds  of  Baptists,  the 
twenty-four  kinds  of  Lutherans,  and  the  others 
by  whatever  name  they  are  called.  The  truth  is 
that  the  perpetuation  of  this  fragmentary  con- 
dition within  families  of  Churches  is  an  an- 
achronism ;  and  though  history  may  somewhat 
condone  it  as  a  concession  to  our  infirmities,  it 
will  nevertheless  at  some  time  permanently  re- 
cord this  state  of  things  as  a  reproach. 

To  close  up  these  family  ranks  is  the  immedi- 
ate duty  of  the  Christians  of  the  United  States. 
But  shall  we  not  look  beyond  this  to  a  still  more 
comprehensive  unification  in  the  future?  To  do 
so  is  not  disloyalty  to  one's  own  denomination. 
It  does  not  involve  any  falling  out  of  the  ranks 
in  which  one  is  enrolled  either  as  a  layman  or  as 
a  minister.  It  in  no  measure  ignores  or  belittles 
the  good  that  has  been  achieved  by  the  denomi- 
nations, in  spite  of  their  separation,  or  by  virtue 

[90] 


An  Outlook 


of  it.  Neither  does  it  imply  any  denial  or  any 
lack  of  appreciation  of  the  already  existing 
deeper  spiritual  oneness  of  all  Christians  by 
whatever  name  they  may  be  called.  It  is  thor- 
oughly consistent  with  a  hearty  acknowledgment 
that  together  Christians  in  this  land  and  in  all 
lands  now  constitute  a  single  great  visible  Church 
under  the  banner  of  Christ. 

"Elect  from  every  nation, 

Yet  one  o'er  all  the  earth, 
Her  charter  of  salvation 

One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  birth; 
One  holy  name  she  blesses, 

Partakes  one  holy  food. 
And  to  one  hope  she  presses. 

With  every  grace  endued." 

But  it  does  assume  that  we  fritter  away 
strength  by  cleavage  between  the  various  corps, 
or  regiments,  or  companies,  and  sometimes  by 
petty  jealousies;  that  we  more  or  less  occupy 
the  same  territory,  and  get  in  each  other's  way 
on  the  march ;  that  we  do  not  move  to  the  assault 
as  one  combined  body,  but  attack  independently 
for  the  most  part,  and  make  of  the  campaign  a 
melee  rather  than  the  advance  of  mighty  columns 
between  which  the  enemy  cannot  penetrate.  At 

[91] 


The  Unification  of  the  Churches 


the  same  time  right  here  in  America  we  may 
well  be  almost  appalled  by  the  moral  and  re- 
ligious outlook.  We  are  in  the  presence  of  con- 
ditions that  arouse  the  gravest  anxieties  of 
thoughtful  Christians  of  all  denominations,  and 
that  call  for  the  most  thorough  organization 
possible  as  to  our  forces  and  our  efforts.  For 
the  reasons  given,  many  of  us  pray  that  the  time 
may  be  hastened  when  the  ecclesiastical  disunion 
now  existent  shall  be  brought  to  as  complete  an 
end  as  possible,  and  we  are  eager  to  do  what  we 
wisely  can  to  approximate  the  accomplishment 
of  this  aim.  We  would  neglect  no  other  duty  in 
order  to  find  time  or  strength  to  perform  this. 
We  are  wedded  to  no  pet  schemes  for  the  attain- 
ment of  our  desire.  We  stretch  out  our  hands 
to  welcome  any  one  who  is  ready  to  join  with  us 
in  forwarding  this  movement,  neither  too  fast 
nor  too  slow,  and  to  come  with  us  a  part,  or  to 
come  with  us  the  whole  of  the  way  to  this  goal. 

Inner,  spiritual  union  is  better  than  any  which 
is  wholly  or  mainly  outward  and  visible.  We  do 
not  question  this.  If  either  of  these  must  be 
eliminated  let  it  by  all  means  be  that  which  is 
external.  Of  course,  this  is  true.  But  why 
eliminate  either?  The  more  we  have  of  the  one, 
the  more  we  will  also  have  of  the  other,  provided 

[92] 


An  Outlook 


we  are  always  loyal  to  truth  and  righteousness. 
It  is  out  of  a  deeper  and  more  thoroughly  per- 
vading spiritual  union  of  Christians  that  an  in- 
creasing external  unification  of  the  Churches 
must  be  born  if  it  is  worth  having;  and  if  it  is 
bom  of  such  parentage,  the  more  w-ill  it  by  its 
reflex  influence  stimulate  the  hidden  life  which 
is  common  to  all  Christians. 


[93] 


Date  Due 

fe?  

